1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he availed a loan from OP.1 for purchase of Yamaha- Libero motor cycle vide Loan A/c. No.LTJEY00006130840 and paid number of EMIs through the agent of Ops but some paid installments were not adjusted to the loan accounts of the complainant.  Noticing discrepancies, the complainant met OP.1 on 23.2.2012 and the Ops issued a letter dt.27.2.12 to the complainant directing deposit of Rs.20, 000/- towards closure of loan accounts.  It is submitted that the complainant after getting the letter, discussed with the Ops about non adjustment of some installments and return of Board certificate furnished at the time of availing loan as well as issue of NOC but the Ops assured to see all those complaints as soon as possible.  It is submitted that the complainant deposited Rs.20, 000/- on 27.2.12 but in spite of several visits the Ops neither issued NOC nor returned the certificate as promised by them earlier for which the complainant also visited Berhampur and Bhubaneswar to meet their higher offices but to no result.  The complainant submitted that, finally he sent notice to Ops through his advocate on 28.3.16 and the complainant received a letter from the Ops containing Form No.35 addressed to RTO regarding termination of agreement of hire purchase but failed to say about return of excess amount and Board certificate and it was noticed by the complainant that the Ops have marked the loan matter as “Settled” and intimated the fact to CIBIL for which the complainant is suffering.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to return the excess amount taken by them with interest, to return Board certificate, to lift “Settled” mark shown in the CIBIL and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant for sufferings.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint admitting the sanction of loan for Rs.40, 000/- in favour of the complainant for purchase of two wheeler through an agreement in which the complainant agreed to repay the loan of Rs.40, 000/- with interest of Rs.1484/- in 12 EMIs at Rs.3457/- and out of 12 installments the complainant has paid 5 EMIs in advance amounting to Rs.17, 284/-.  It is contended that the remaining 7 EMIs commenced from 10.4.2006 and ended on 10.10.2006 and apart from hypothecated the vehicle as security for the repayment of loan, the Ops have never demanded or received any certificate from the complainant.  It is further contended that the complainant was irregular in payment of EMIs and had only paid 3 EMIs out of 7 within the tenure of loan and the complainant has been informed about the outstanding in the loan account on different mode but the complainant did not close the loan accounts. The Ops contended that after five years of completion of loan terms i.e. in the month of Feb., 2012, the complainant approached the Ops for settlement of loan dues.  The Ops proposed to settle the loan accounts at Rs.20, 000/- which was agreed and paid by the complainant on 27.2.12 against an outstanding of Rs.35, 389/- and accordingly NOC was dispatched to the communication address of the complainant through ordinary post on 12.3.12.  It is also further contended that after receipt of notice from the counsel of the complainant on 28.3.16, the Ops on 06.04.16 dispatched NOC to the complainant through Speed Post once again and replied to the said notice of the complainant on 28.5.16.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties filed certain documents in support of their cases and the complainant filed affidavit of self.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case vehicle loan of Rs.40, 000/- sanctioned vide loan A/c. No.LTJEY0000130840 in favour of the complainant by OP-1 on 18.3.2006 is an admitted fact.  The loan amount plus interest has been agreed to repay by the complainant in 12 EMIs @ Rs.3457/-.  It is an admitted fact the complainant has paid 5 EMIs in advance and remaining 7 EMIs commenced from 10.4.2006 and ended on 10.10.2006 and the complainant has paid 3 EMIs within the loan period and hence 4 EMIs were remained unpaid.  The complainant stated that he has paid certain EMIs to the agent on good faith but the same have not been accounted.  It is seen that the complainant failed to file any receipt issued by the said agent either in the form of printing or hand receipt.  A bare allegation will not do and as such the allegation fails to attract our consideration.

5.                     Further complainant stated that during sanction of loan and as per demand of OP.1, he has handed over his Board Certificate in original to the OP.1 and after liquidation of loan accounts the OP.1 has not returned it.  The complainant has also demanded his certificate though his notice but the Ops in reply to that notice asked the complainant to furnish any acknowledgement of the Ops while receiving the said certificate.  It is seen that the complainant has not furnished any acknowledgement in support of his allegation that the OP.1 has received his Board certificate while sanctioning the loan.  Hence this allegation of the complainant also has no force and as such needs no consideration.

6.                     The complainant has stated that after payment of loan dues on 27.2.2012 the OPs started harassing the complainant.  They did not issue NOC and supplied information to the CIBIL regarding loan account as “Settled” for which the complainant as a businessman could not obtain loan from any bank.  The Ops admitted that they have supplied information to CIBIL to show loan status as “Settled” and regarding issue of NOC the Ops stated that they have issued NOC in respect of the loan and sent by ordinary post on 12.3.2012.

7.                     Regarding report to CIBIL the Ops stated in their counter at para- 5 that in case where a borrower closed the loan accounts post payment of only principal dues, while reporting to CIBIL the status update would be reflected as “settled” which is in compliance with RBI guidelines and also is indicated in the terms and conditions governing the loan facilities provided to the complainant.  The complainant in his complaint petition has stated that the Ops have not supplied statement of account and the Ops on the other hand have not filed the copy of agreement containing terms and conditions governing the loan facilities provided to the complainant.   In this case it is an admitted fact that the loan EMIs @ Rs.3457/- for 12 months has been finalized accordingly.

                        Loan Amount                                                   Rs. 40, 000/-

                        Interest on loan amount                                 Rs.   1, 484/-

                        Total Liability                                                  Rs. 41, 484/-

            (-)        Advance payment of 5 EMIs @ Rs.3457/-      Rs. 17, 284/

                                                                                                Rs. 24, 200/-

            (-)        Paid 3 EMIs during loan period                      Rs. 10, 371/-

                        Due to be paid            for 4 EMIs                              Rs. 13, 829/- (Outstanding)

                        Borrower paid on 27.2.2012                           Rs. 20, 000/-

8.                     From the above payment behavior it was seen that the complainant had to pay 4 EMIs amounting to Rs.13, 829/- but has paid Rs.20, 000/- whereas the Ops in their a/c statement stated that the principal dues is Rs.17, 285/- to which they have credited to the loan accounts.  If it is taken that the principal EMI due is Rs.13, 829/- or principal due as stated by the Ops is Rs.17, 285/- and they have recovered Rs.20, 000/- from the complainant, then it can be concluded that in any case, the Ops have collected more than the principal dues.  If this is so then how could the Ops say that they have only collected principal dues from the complainant?  It is also found from the statement of account that the Ops have charged additional interest of Rs.20, 511/- and cheque bounce charge of Rs.1350/- but only waive off the additional interest of Rs.17, 285/-.  Hence it became crystal clear that the Ops have collected all the EMIs as well as some part of additional interest and cheque bounce charges on their full satisfaction.  Therefore, the Ops cannot say that they have collected the principal dues only from the complainant and settled the loan accounts.  In the above circumstances, “Settled” mark in the loan account status was not necessarily required and by doing so the Ops have committed unfair trade practice.  For such arbitrary action of the Ops, the complainant is not getting any loan from any bank and suffering harassments after liquidation of loan accounts.

9.                     Coming to the point of non issuance of NOC it is seen that the complainant made final payment on 27.2.12 and the Ops zeroes the loan accounts on 07.3.12.  The complainant stated that after liquidation of loan a/c, the Ops did not issue the NOC but the Ops stated that they have dispatched the NOC to the communication address of the complainant through ordinary post on 12.3.12.  No supportive documents have been filed by the Ops in support of their contention that they sent the NOC on 12.3.12.  NOC is an important document and cannot be sent through ordinary post to any customer after closure of loan accounts.  In absence of any dispatch details of NOC it can be safely hold that the Ops have not dispatched the NOC on 12.3.12.  However, after receipt of legal notice from the complainant, the Ops have sent NOC on 06.4.2016 through Speed Post.  Thus the Ops after receipt of loan dues did not issue the NOC for more than 4 years and only after issue of legal notice, the Ops woke up and issued the NOC.  This inaction of the Ops in our opinion amounts to serious deficiency in service for which the complainant was suffering and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure. For such inaction of the Ops, the complainant is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs and considering the sufferings we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favor of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

10.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to make necessary arrangement to lift the “Settled” mark as appeared in the book of CIBIL forthwith enabling the complainant to get loan from any bank and the Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)