O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                        The complainant filed this complaint before this Forum u/s.12 of the C.P. Act for getting a relief against the opposite parties.

                        2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows: The complainant availed a vehicle loan for Rs.2,85,000/- only on 06.05.2008 for his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 03 R 1307 INDICA DLS from the opposite party with an agreement to repay the amount with 60 instalments.   As per the agreement the 1^st instalment was Rs.7,663/- and the remaining 59 instalment was Rs.6,500/- each.  According to the complainant, he paid the whole instalment through their collection agent and sometime through the 3^rd opposite party’s bank.  It is contended that after the completion of the loan arrangement he demanded no objection certificate, which is to be produced before the RTO office for deleting the hypothecation entry, the opposite party illegally demanded hidden charges with exorbitant interest from the complainant.  Aggrieved by the attitude of the opposite party 1 and 2, complainant issued 2 notices dated 11.03.2014 and 31.10.2014 to opposite party 1 and 2 respectively.  It is further contended that the non issuance of No Objection Certificate after the completion of the full payment of the arrears is clearly a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite party 1 and 2.  The act and attitude of the opposite parties caused much financial loss, harassment, inconvenience, hardship, physical discomfort and mental agony to the complainant for which the opposite parties are also liable for compensation.  Hence the complainant filed this case before this Forum for directing the opposite parties for issuing the NOC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 03 R 1307, compensation etc. etc. from the opposite parties.

                        3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties for their appearance.  Opposite party 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed their version.  Opposite party 3 did not file any version.

                        4. The version of opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows:  According to them, this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  It is contended that there is an hypothecation agreement existing between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2.  It is also admitted that an amount of Rs.2,85,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant on 06.05.2008 as a vehicle loan for the purchase of a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 03 R 1307.  As per the agreement, the complainant shall repay Rs.3,91,163/-  to the opposite party 1 and 2.  It is again contended that if the complainant is remitting the default amount together with interest upon the broken instalment amount, the contesting opposite parties are ready and willing to issue NOC to the complainant.  It is further stated that this opposite parties never caused any harassment, inconvenience etc. etc. to the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite parties.  According to this opposite parties, the complainant is not entitled to get any of the relief from the opposite parties as prayed.  It is prayed that this Forum has to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.

          5. This Forum peruse the complaint, the versions and the records before us, we framed the following issues:

1. Whether this case is maintainable before the Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Regarding reliefs and costs?

            6. The evidence of this case consists of the evidence adduced by PW1 as well as DW1.  Ext.A1 to A5 are marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to B4 and Ext.A6 are marked on the side of the opposite party.  The complainant as PW1 filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  When we go through the proof affidavit, it is to see that the proof affidavit is more or less as per the terms of his complaint.  PW1 deposed that he availed a loan of Rs.2,85,000/- on 06.05.2008 from opposite party 1 and 2 and he paid Rs.7,663/- as the 1^st instalment and the remaining instalment was for an amount of Rs.6,500/- each with 59 instalment.  PW1 further deposed that he paid the entire instalment through the collection agent of opposite party 1 and 2 and some time directly at opposite party’s office at Pathanamthitta.  PW1 further deposed that even though he paid the entire amount to opposite party 1 and 2, the opposite party 1 and 2 purposefully and deliberately with ulterior motive reluctant to issue the NOC as requested by him.  At the time of examining PW1, Ext.A1 to A5 are also marked through him.  Ext.A1 series are the receipts issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A2 series are the receipts (8 in Nos.) issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A3 is the copy of notice dated 31.10.2014 sent by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A4 series are the postal receipts and acknowledgment cards. Ext.A5 series are the receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A6 is a notice dated 01.02.2014 issued by opposite party to the complainant. On the other side, the opposite party 1 and 2 examined their power of attorney holder as DW1 and through him Ext.B1 to B3 were marked.  Ext.B1 is the copy of agreement.  Ext.B2 is the copy of power of attorney executed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.B3 is the agreement.  Ext.B4 is the copy of contract details.  DW1 filed a proof affidavit in place of his chief examination and deposed more or less as per the tune of version filed by opposite party 1 and 2.  DW1 deposed that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,85,000/-  on 06.05.2008 for the purchase of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 03 R 1307.  It is further deposed that as per the agreement, PW1 has to repay an amount of Rs.3,91,163/- to opposite party 1 and 2 in 60 instalments.  It is admitted that the complainant repaid Rs.3,69,603/- up to 03.07.2015.  It is also assured that if PW1 paid the remaining principal amount with interest to opposite party 1 and 2 they are ready and willing to issue NOC to the complainant.  The opposite party 1 and 2’s counsel cross-examined PW1 and the complainant himself cross-examined DW1.  After the closure of the evidence, we heard the argument of both side in this case.

            7. Point No.1:-  According to the opposite party 1 and 2, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we appreciate the evidence adduced by both side in this case it reveals that the complainant is a customer of the opposite party 1 and 2 and the opposite party 1 and 2 are the service provider of the complainant.  The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party is reluctant to issue NOC of his vehicle even though he repaid the whole loan amount.  Considering this aspects we can safely arrived a conclusion to the effect that the case is maintainable before this Forum and Point No.1 is found accordingly.

            8.  Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  The main question to be considered is whether the opposite party 1 and 2 committed any deficiency in service against the complainant PW1.  It is admitted that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,85,000/- for the purchase of a Tata Indica DLS car bearing Reg.No.KL 03 R 1307 from opposite party 1 and 2.  As per the deposition of DW1, it is categorically stated that the complainant repaid an amount of Rs.3,69,603/- up to 03.07.2015.  It is to see that at the time of cross-examination the complainant did not challenge this portion of evidence.  It is also deposed that there is an amount of Rs.3,91,163/- has to be repaid by the complainant as per the agreement Ext.B2.  With regard to this amount, the complainant has not raised any dispute at the time of his cross-examination.  Hence we can easily come to a conclusion that the balance amount to be paid by the complainant to opposite party 1 and 2 is only Rs.21,560/-.

            9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, PW1 produced Ext.A1, A1(a) and A1(b) receipt issued from opposite party 3 syndicate bank.  Ext.A2 series (8 in numbers) are the receipt issued by the opposite party 1 and 2 in favour of the complainant in this case.  At the time of taking evidence, either the complainant or the opposite party 1 and 2 has not raised any serious objection with regard to Ext.A1, A1(a), A1(b) and A2 series bills.  Hence we can rely these documents in favour of the contention raised by the complainant.  Ext.A3 and A4 series are the advocate notice issued against the opposite parties dated 31.10.2014.  Ext.A5 is also receipt issued by opposite party 1 and 2 in favour of the complainant.  At the time of cross-examination, the complainant had shown this receipt and asked the genuineness of Ext.A5.  Ext.A6 is a letter from the opposite party in favour of the complainant with regard to a conciliation as per Provisions of Sec.62 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.  The main intention of Ext.A6 is only to raise the contention of issuance of notice to complainant’s erroneous address.  At the time of cross-examination of DW1 answered, “ഈ കേസിൽ 21,560/þ മുതൽ ഇനത്തിൽ വാദിയിൽ നിന്ന് ലഭിക്കാനുണ്ട്. മുതൽ മാത്രം വാങ്ങി case പരിഹരിക്കാൻ കഴിയുമോ എന്ന് company യുമായി ആലോചിക്കണം. .  Simple interest എന്ന് ഈടാക്കാവൂ എന്നത് O.Pþ ക്ക് ബാധകം ആണ് .  11.04.2013 മുതലുള്ള interest ലഭിക്കാനുണ്ട്”. When we peruse this portion of his deposition we can inferred that there is only an amount of Rs.21,560/- is still remaining as principal amount with opposite party 1 And 2.  At the time of hearing, the complainant submitted that he is ready and willing to settle the claim for an amount of Rs.21,560/- as the principal amount and ready to pay simple interest from 11.04.2013 onwards.  In the light of the submission, we find that the complainant’s submission with regard to the principal amount and simple interest from 11.04.2013 is justifiable.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties vehemently argued that though the complainant demanded a huge compensation from the opposite party that demand of the complainant has not been allowed.  When we examine the evidence of this case, it can be seen that the non-issuance of NOC is due to non payment of the whole amount.  As stated earlier, the complaint has a definite case to the effect that he paid the whole arrears to opposite party 1 and 2.  But when we peruse the evidence before us, it is clear that the complainant has defaulted the ‘full payment’ as stated by him.  At this stage, we would like to find that the complaint is not eligible for any compensation as prayed.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complaint can be partly allowed.  Point No.2 and 3 also found accordingly.

            10. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party 1 and 2 are directed to issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant subject to the realisation of the principal amount Rs.21,560/- (Rupees Twenty One Thousand five hundred and sixty only) plus simple interest from 11.04.2013 till this date.

2. A cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from opposite party 1 and 2 (The complainant is eligible to reduce the cost from the amount calculated as per Point No.1).

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of August, 2016.

                                                                                      (Sd/-)      

                                                                  P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :     (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                  :     (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :   Radhakrishnan Nair

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1series :  Receipts issued by the 3^rd opposite party to the complainant. 

A2 series : Receipts (8 in Nos.) issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant. 

A3  :  Copy of notice dated 31.10.2014 sent by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party. 

A4 series :  Postal receipts and acknowledgment cards.

A5 series :  Receipts issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant. 

A6  :  Notice dated 01.02.2014 issued by opposite party to the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  :   Sains Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Copy of agreement. 

B2 :  Copy of power of attorney executed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party. 

B3 :  Agreement. 

B4 :  Copy of contract details.

                                                                                                                 (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Radhakrishnan Nair, Anjaly Nivas, Pariyaram.P.O., Elanthoor Village,

                     Kozhencherry Taluk, Pathanamthitta.                                                                                     (2) TATA Motors Finance Ltd., DGP House, 4^th Floor, Old Prabha Devi Road,

           Mumbai – 400 025.

     (3)  Manager, TATA Motors Finance Ltd., Geetha Trade Center,

           Near YWCA, Nagambadam, Kottayam – 1.

     (4) Syndicate Bank, Pathanamthitta.

     (5) The Stock File.