Date of filing: 30.01.2019
Date of disposal : 28.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.59/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
(CC.No.39/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr.M.Ravindranath,
No.37, Kazipattur,
O.M.R.Road, Padur post,
Kanchiputam Distrct -603 103. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
Deccan Finance Limited,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Registered Office No.75 (Old No.34-B),
Nungambakkam High Road,
Chennai 600 034.
Now at
No.19, First Cross Street,
Sterling Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai 600 034,
(Near Srilankan Embassy). ...Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.N.Naveenkumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mrs.Vittaldev Priya, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.39/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.59/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in non issuance of No Due Certificate over the loan obtained by the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of vehicle Mahindra Max Cab Tourist (2010model) bearing a vehicle No.TN 21 AF 6031 stands in the name of the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-with 24% interest per annum from the date of this complaint till realization along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Mahindra Max Cab Tourist (2010model) bearing a vehicle No.TN 21 AF 6031 from one Mr.S.Ramesh. The vehicle was the only livelihood of the complainant. The complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party in an agreement code No.HC-13-080 for availing loan facility from the opposite party’s financial institution. Accordingly a total loan amount of Rs.6,52,500/- was agreed upon and the loan installments were fixed for 36 months. Also, the monthly installments amounts to Rs.18,125/- and the installments commenced from 26.05.2013 to 26.04.2016. The complainant was very much regular in the payment of the monthly installments from 26.05.2013 to 26.12.2015 i.e. for 32 months. It was further submitted that in the month of January 2016 he suffered financial problems and thus he was unable to pay the installment amount for the month of January, February, March and April 2016 which amounted to a total sum of Rs.72,490/-. On 03.09.2016 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the opposite party to adjust the outstanding amount of Rs.72,490/- and the receipt of the same was also acknowledged. The complainant states that only a sum of Rs.12,500/- was outstanding at that time. On 27.01.2017 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant asking him to settle the outstanding amount of Rs.30,000/- along with the late payment charges of Rs.8765/-. Again on 22.04.2017 the opposite party had sent another letter to the complainant calling him to settle the outstanding amount of Rs.30,025/- along with the late payment charges of Rs.6845/-. After the receipt of the letter, he approached the opposite party on 28.06.2017 seeking one time settlement for an amount of Rs.33,500/- as full and final settlement and the same was accepted by the opposite party. Thus he had deposited a sum of Rs.33,500/- to the opposite party on 28.06.2017 against receipt No.1684 and at the time of settlement the complainant requested the opposite party to provide No Objection Certificate which was assured by the opposite party that he would provide it the very next day to the complainant and also asked the complainant to collect it on 29.06.2018. It was further submitted that due to non-issuance of No Objection Certificate by the opposite party to the complainant, he was unable to pledge the vehicle for his urgent needs and commitments. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed against the opposite party to direct them to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of the vehicle Mahindra Max Cab Tourist (2010model) bearing a vehicle No.TN 21 AF 6031 which stands in the name of the complainant and to pay compensation a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-with 24% interest per annum from the date of this complaint till realization along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the opposite party was a financial institution which provides loans and advances to the needy for securities and interest as per law. This complaint is not maintainable before this commission as prescribed under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the complaint is barred by limitation. It was denied that no assurance has been given by the opposite party regarding issuance of No Objection Certificate on the next day itself as alleged in the complaint and the opposite party has clearly informed the complainant that the complainant was a guarantor for one Mr.R.Manikandan in Hypothecation Agreement HC-14-257 dated 13.12.2014 and an Arbitral Award Case No.DFL 63, dated 15.02.2017 had been made in which it was awarded in favour of the opposite party and stands against the complainant and one Mr.R.Manikandan and thus the opposite party has clearly stated that only after settling of Arbitral Award only No Objection Certificate will be issued to the complainant. The reason for not issuing the No Objection Certificate has been clearly mentioned and sent a reply to the complainant’s legal notice dated 23.11.2018 which has been received by the complainant as well as complainant’s counsel dated 24.01.2019. It was submitted that as the previous reply letter by the opposite party to complainant has been returned unserved citing No such person Endorsement, once again it has been sent both to the complainant as well as the complainant’s counsel who has been duly received by them. It was submitted taht legally permissible for them to withhold the No Objection Certificate and hence there is no cause of action for this complaint in this commission and thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A11. The opposite party filed proof affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether the act of opposite party in not issuing No Objection certificate even after the repayment of entire loan amount with regard to the loan obtained by the complainant for the purchase of Mahindra Max Cab Tourist (2010Model) amounted to deficiency in service?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1;-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Statement of Loan Account stands in the name of the complainant dated 03.09.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;
R.C Book of the vehicle was marked as Ex.A2;
Vehicle insurance was marked as Ex.A3;
Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 27.01.2017 was marked as Ex.A4;
Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 22.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
Receipt No.1684 showing the one time settlement dated 28.06.2017 was marked as Ex.A6;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 23.11.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Acknowledgement for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A8;
Reply notice of the opposite party dated 21.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A9;
Aadhaar Card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A10;
Visiting card of the opposite party showing the change of address of the business place was marked as Ex.A11;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their defence;
a) Statement of Account was marked as Ex.B1;
b) Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 23.11.2018 was marked as Ex.B2;
c) Reply notice issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.B3;
d) Copy of Arbitration Award dated 15.02.2017 was marked as Ex.B4;
Point No.1:-
The Inspite of sufficient and opportunity provided to both parties to adduce oral arguments, both parties did not appear. Hence this commission was constrained to consider the written arguments filed by both parties as oral arguments to decide the complaint on merits.
The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that he had obtained loan for purchase of Mahindra Max Cab Tourist (2010Model) from one Mr.S.Ramesh for a sum of Rs.6,52,500/-. The monthly instalments started from 26.05.2013 to 26.04.2016. As there was certain dues finally via OTS an amount of Rs.32,500/- was paid to the opposite party on 28.06.2017. When the opposite party was requested No Objection Certificate though assured that it would be provided the next day, the same was not provided to the complainant. The defence of the opposite party that the complainant stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained one Mr.R.Manikandan and that an Arbitral Award was passed against him, hence the No Objection Certificate could not be issued to the complainant is a clear deficiency in service as they did not mention about the same in the letter dated 22.04.2017. In the letter 22.04.2017 only the outstanding amount was requested to be paid. Thus the complainant prayed for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, in the written arguments filed by the opposite party it is stated that the complaint is not maintainable under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The purchase of vehicle for one Mr.S.Ramesh is admitted. It is denied that assurance was given that on the next day of payment the No Objection Certificate would be given to the complainant. It is clearly informed to the complainant that an Arbitral Award Case No. DFL 63 dated 15.02.2017 had been passed in favour of the opposite party against the complainant and one Mr.R.Manikandan and only after settling the Arbitral Award the No Objection Certificate would be issued to the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant was owner of more than one vehicle at the time of filing of complaint and hence the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicle was purchased for commercial purpose. Thus stating various other grounds, the opposite party had filed the written arguments and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
With regard to the maintainability of the complaint the opposite party had contended that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer as he purchased for commercial purpose. However, the opposite party did not produce any documents to show that the complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose.
However, ongoing through the pleadings even admitted by both parties the vehicle was purchased by way of resale from one Mr.S.Ramesh which act as a bar for the complainant to file the present complaint. At this juncture, we like to refer to the definition of consumer wherein it has been specifically provided that “but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”. In such circumstances when it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on resale from one Mr.S.Ramesh he cannot be brought under the purview of Consumer as per the provision of the Act. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable before this commission.
Even on merits admittedly an Arbitral Award Case No. DFL 63 dated 15.02.2017 has been passed against the complainant and one Mr.R.Manikandan. The defence by the opposite party that they had withheld the No Objection Certificate until the settlement of the dues as per the Arbitral Award also assumes significance and even on merits the complaint has to be dismissed. Thus we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complaint is not maintainable and that complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 03.09.2016 Statement of Loan Account stands in the name of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 ................ R.C.Book. Xerox
Ex.A3 18.09.2018 Vehicle insurance policy copy. Xerox
Ex.A4 27.01.2017 Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant Xerox
Ex.A5 22.04.2017 Notice issued by the opposite party to the complainant Xerox
Ex.A6 28.06.2017 Receipt No.1684 showing the one time settlement. Xerox
Ex.A7 23.11.2016 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A8 ............... Acknowledgement for proof of delivery. Xerox
Ex.A9 21.01.2019 Reply notice of the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A10 ................. Aadhaar Card of the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A11 ................ Visiting card of the opposite party showing the change of address of the business place. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ................ Statement of Loan Account Xerox
Ex.B2 23.11.2018 Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B3 21.01.2019 Reply notice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B4 15.02.2017 Copy of Arbitration Award. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
