D.O.F. 14.12.2010
D.O.O. 26.11.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2011.
C.C.No.294/2010
Santhosh Kumar K.S.,
S/o. Sivadasan Nair, : Complainant
Karakkal House, Anakuzhi,
Manakkadavu, Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. K.G. Sunil Kumar)
The Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd : Opposite party
Nadakkave Branch,
Kozhikode.
(Rep. by Adv. Adv. R. Jayaprakasan)
O R D E R
Sri. K. Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate and to pay ` 20,000 as compensation.
The brief of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant cleared the entire loan amount in respect of his vehicle loan. After repayment of entire loan amount, the Centrurian Bank is merged with HDFC Bank and his documents in connection with the loan transaction are kept by the Nadakkavu Branch of HDFC Bank. Complainant made repeated request to issue No Objection Certificate and certificate to show that the entire loan amount was repaid. It was also informed that the complainant was in dire need to sell the vehicle. Both certificates are necessary to sell the vehicle. But opposite party did not issue the same. Complainant sent lawyer notice but not responded. Since he has not received the certificates he could not sell the vehicle. Hence this complaint.
Though notice was sent to opposite party and received the same, opposite party remained absent to appear and thereby set exparte. But petition to set aside the exparte order filed and allowed the same. Thereafter the opposite party filed version.
The contents of version are as follows : The complainant had availed loan from Centurian Bank which subsequently merged with opposite party bank. The allegation that the EMI was ` 1,193 is correct. The terms of the agreement had mandated 20 installments and not 19 EMI’s. Entire merger formalities are not completed. So opposite party is not having any first hand information over the alleged loan transaction. As per the account the entire amount has not been cleared. Subsequent to the merger opposite party had contacted the petitioner to clarify about the cheque that was shown as not paid and the repeated requests was not considered. The allegation that the petitioner had approached the opposite party is only partially true. He enquired through phone and he was informed that NOC could be issued on clearing the dues as per the account which is ` 3058.14 as on 14.02.2011. He did not clear the dues but sent lawyer notice. Complainant has not approved the real fact regarding the last payment and hence the bank cannot be found liable.
On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
3. Relief and cost.
All the attempt for settlement were failed. The opposite party subsequently remained absent and his name called in open Forum and set exparte. The evidence consists of the chief affidavit of complainant and Ext.A1 to A4. No evidence on the part of opposite party.
Issues 1 to 3
Admittedly complainant availed loan from Centurian Bank, which had later on merged with opposite party bank. Complainant’s specific case is that opposite party did not issue NOC and clearance certificate, by which he could not sell his vehicle though he has been under financial stringency. Opposite party on the other hand contended that complainant has not cleared the entire loan amount. As per the account ` 3058.14 as on 14.02.11 has to be paid by the complainant.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and adduced evidence that the entire amount with respect to the loan (loan account No.90932071) has been paid by him. It is an admitted fact that the Centurion Bank from where he took the loan, afterward merged with HDFC Bank Ltd and the documents in respect of the loan had been kept with Nadakkavu Branch of Kozhikode. Ext.A1 is the R.C. Book of the vehicle and Ext.A2 is the Pass Book. Ext.A3 copy of the lawyer notice dated 29.07.2001 sent to opposite party. Ext.A4 A.D. Card proves that the complainant sent the notice to opposite party. Complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit evidence, that he had sent lawyer notice. Moreover, opposite party admitted that complainant had sent lawyer notice but kept silent, how did they get respond to the notice. That means they neither replied nor accepted to do what was demanded by Ext.A3. Keeping silent to the legal notice of the complainant is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As per pleading of the opposite party in the version opposite party’s main case is that “The non-issuance of NOC is caused only due to the fact that status of the last payment made by the petitioner was not positive”. Whatever, may be intended by the opposite party Ext.A3, the lawyer notice specifically stated thus: “On 26.04.2007, my client cleared the entire loan amount by paying the last installment ie, the 19th installment”. If it is wrong or not acceptable, opposite party should have given a reply to it stating the facts based on the account of the loan. Opposite party did not produce any document to show that they have informed the complainant before or after the reason why did they reluctant to issue NOC opposite party could not even present proper reasons against complainant to establish that the entire amount of the loan has not been paid. Opposite party did not conducted the case with effective defence which leads to presume that their hands are empty and the withdrawal from the scene is only a tactics.
On going through the available evidence and taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case we have no hesitiation to say that non-issuance of NOC is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence we hold that opposite party is liable to issue NOC and to pay a sum of ` 5000 as compensation together with an amount of ` 1000 as cost of this proceedings. This issues 1 to 3 are found in favour of the complainant and order passed accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to issue NOC to complainant and to pay a sum of ` 5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and an amount of ` 1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as the cost of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per Consumer Protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A2. Copy of Pass Book.
A3. Copy of lawyer notice dated 29.07.10.
A4. Acknowledgment card.
Exhibits for the opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
Nil
Witness examined for opposite party
Nil
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
