1. Deficiency in service and illegal trade practice against the Opposite Parties is the grievance of the complainant.
2. The brief fact of the complaint case is that, the complainant purchased a vehicle (Tipper) bearing Regd. No. OR-16-D-3531 financed from the Ops obtaining loan of Rs. 11, 30,000/- with finance charges of Rs. 3, 39,000/- on dated 28.08.2010. The complainant is agreed to repayment of total loan dues of Rs. 14, 69,000/- to the Op finance company in 46 EMIs commencing from dated 21.09.2010 to 21.06.2014. The complainant before the date of maturity in hypothecation of agreement has on dated 27.01.2014 repaid the entire financed dues including finance charges to the Op with a hope to get benefit as offered declared by the company in advance closer of loan agreement. On payment of the total loan dues, neither the Op offered any award of benefit nor issued Certificate of No Dues to the complainant rather sent message through Mobile to pay the EMI of April is more painful to him. Due to none providing of NDC, the complainant suffered irreparable loss and injuries and unable to sold the vehicle to the outsider at the time of his financial crises. Due to aforesaid negligence act of the Ops, the complainant suffered harassments, which amounts to their deficiency in service.  Hence this case is filed against the Ops for providing NDC with payment of Rs. 1, 20,000/- as claim of compensation and cost of litigation towards harassment to the complainant.
3.  Op, the Branch Manager, Hinduja Leyland Finance Limited entered appearance before the Forum through the learned advocate and filed his written version by alleging, that the present case is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  Admitting the finance of vehicle with receipt of all EMIs by the company of Op alleged in written statement that, as the outstanding dues amounts are pending against the HP and not settled as per agreement, the financer can’t entertain NOC in favour of the hirer. As per the loan account statement of the complainant an amount of Rs. 1,57,283/- as delay payment charges and Cheque return charges of Rs. 3,283/- is outstanding against the complainant is required to be cleared by the complainant for obtaining NDC from the Op. Due to default in repayment of monthly instalments in time the delay penal interest and other charges incurred in complainant loan account with the opposite parties is yet not cleared by the complainant, therefore the NDC under the said loan account are on hold till clearance of said amount. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Op finance company.
4. Heard the case from both side, peruse the complaint petition, written versions, documents available in the records and on verbal submission by the parties it is found that, the alleged disputed vehicle purchased by the complainant has been financed with the company of Op. It is also admitted to say that, an amount of Rs. 11, 30,000/- has been sanctioned as loan to the complainant by the finance company Op with charging interest (finance charges) of total amount was Rs. 3, 39,000/-, which the complainant has to make repayment of the aforesaid loan amount with interest (Finance Charges) in 46 equal monthly instalments of Rs. 31,935/- each. On verification of loan account statement vide Annexure “A” pertaining to the loan account financed in favour of the complainant and admission made by the Op in written statement, we could ascertained that, the total loan along with interest (finance charges) has already been repaid by the complainant to the Op advance prior to five months before its due date of maturity. During course of argument the complainant vehemently objected as to illegal charging of penal interest on delay payment of instalments by the finance company Op and submits that, the complainant has within the maturity of period repaid all the EMIs without fail, hence question of over dues (Delay Penal Interest Charges) does not arise. The complainant further submits that, the finance company during collection of EMIs has manipulated the loan account statement of the complainant and none providing of NDC on the ground as above is clear case of harassment to the complainant. We have very carefully gone through the case record and documents available before us and considering the fact and circumstances with relying on the decision of the State CDR Commission reported in 1997 (I) OLR (CSR)-20, we feel it gross negligence done by the finance company Op by demanding over dues charges on payment of delay penal interest charges as in the account statement is not just and proper. Besides, the Op during course of providing service to the complainant have committed negligence of delay towards issuing No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant is amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Op.
5.  In view of our forgoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed from the Op and for the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances we hold that, the complaint petition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the Op directed to provide NO DUES CERTIICATE to the complainant after settlement of the loan account with adjustment of the over dues pending outstanding due to delay payment of EMIs in the account statement within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 09% per annum as penalty  would be applicable from the date of the order.

The order is pronounced in the open forum on this day of 16^th April, 2015 under the signature and seal of the forum. 

                            The case is disposed off accordingly.