The brief history of the case of the complainant is that vide Contract No.OSJ00823H dt.24.5.2006 he availed a loan of Rs.30, 000/- Plus interest amount of Rs.3150/- on the said loan for a total Agreement Value of Rs.33, 150/- from the OP and the contract period was from 24.5.2006 to 21.10.2007.  It is submitted that the complainant after payment of margin money of Rs.30, 554/- availed of Rs.30, 000/- and purchased motorcycle vide Registration No.OR-10E-1009 and started payment of loan dues @ Rs.1841/- p.a.  It is further submitted that he paid all the dues by 30.10.2007 but the OP collected more amount than the contract value on different pleas.  On 26.6.13 the complainant also paid some extra amount on demand of the OP but in spite of repeated personal request, the OP failed to issue No Due Certificate (NDC) in favor of the complainant. Thus alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to issue NDC and to refund Rs.570/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from 26.6.2013 and to pay Rs.25, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted that the complainant had availed loan vide Agreement No.OSJ00823H dt.24.5.06 for purchase of motorcycle and he was to repay the dues within 18 EMIs.  It is contended that the complainant failed to repay the loan amount during the scheduled period due to dishonor of the cheques for which penalty was imposed on the complainant towards cheque bounce till payment.  Finally, the complainant settled the contract by paying Rs.570/- which is not an extra amount.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed the Forum to direct the complainant to receive NDC and dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the OP and perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.

4.                     In this case, the loan availed by the complainant from OP vide Contract No.OSJ00823H dt. 24.5.2016 for Rs.33, 150/- which includes interest and the loan dues to be repaid in 18 EMIs are all admitted facts.  The complainant submitted that he paid the entire loan dues by 30.10.2007 but the OP with different plea charged some extra amount on the on the complainant.  The A/c statement of loan is available on record.  On perusal of  Statement of Account (SOA) it was found that 3 Nos of PDCs of the complainant have been returned without collection from the bank and hence as on 30.10.2007 the balance was Rs.2166/-.  Therefore, the contention of the complainant that as on 30.10.07 he had paid all the dues is not correct on the face of SOA.  It is seen that the OP has charged cheque bounce dues but the complainant has cleared all his dues on 29.2.08 and accounts balance shows Rs. (-4) as on that date.

5.                     The allegation of the complainant is that after payment of all the dues, the OP on repeated personal approach and phone contact did not issue the NDC.  It is also seen that from 29.2.08 the OP has not taken any action for issue of NDC since no balance was pending against the complainant as per SOA.  The complainant stated that the OP demanded Rs.570/- to issue NDC whereas no balance was due against him.  The complainant made the said payment to OP on 26.6.13 and after receipt of Rs.570/- the OP also failed to issue NDC.  We have carefully gone through the SOA and found that on 12.9.14 the OP has adjusted the payment of Rs.570/- i.s. after 15 months from 26.6.2013 which in our opinion is a glaring example of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

6.                     Further it is seen that after 29.2.08 when the payment was cleared and balance was nil, the SOA is silent about any balance against the complainant.  After more than 4 years, the OP woke up and demanded Rs.570/-.  If Rs.570/- was due, the OP could have shown the said balance on 29.2.08 but it did not do so then.   After more than 4 years the demand of Rs.570/- is a fault on the part of the OP.  Further after payment of Rs.570/- on 26.6.2013, the OP committed another fault by adjusting the same on 12.9.14.  The complainant stated that after payment of Rs.570/- on 26.6.13 the OP did not taken any step to arrange NDC.  The OP on the other hand stated that they have arranged NDC during December, 2014 but the complainant is not receiving the NDC.  The OP did not disclose the arrangements made by him to hand over the NDC to the complainant.

7.                     From the above facts it became crystal clear that the OP sat over the NDC till filing of this case on 15.5.15 and till date the NDC is with the OP.  The OP could have sent the NDC after due contact with the complainant as the both the parties are staying in the same town.  The NDC could have been sent through registered post but the OP did not do so.  These activities of OP in our opinion certainly amount to unfair trade practice specifically after payment of all the dues.

8.                     From the above discussions it can be safely concluded that the OP has not collected Rs.570/- as extra from the complainant.  As some cheques have been bounced and the complainant has paid the said dues after their respective due dates, the OP has charged additional interest which in our opinion is genuine.  It is found that the OP has recovered the specific amount after more than 5 years without intimating the said fact in time to the complainant and also adjusted the same after 15 months i.e. on 12.9.14.  Non issuance of NDC for such a longer period is certainly concluded as unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP for which the complainant has suffered.  Further for such inaction of OP, the complainant has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is certainly entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and costs in favor of the complainant will be just and proper.  The OP is to be directed to handover the NDC to the complainant at his residence.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to handover the NDC to the complainant at his resident and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the awarded sum shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order of this case.

(to dict.)