DATE OF FILING : 10.04.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 27.05.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 26.02.2016.
Sanjib Das,
son of Arun Kumar Das
of village Basudevpur ( Shibtala ), P.O. Banipur, P.S. Sankrail,
District Howrah,
PIN 711304. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. The Family Credit Limited,
having its office at Technopolis, 7th floor, Wing A, Plot 4,
Block BP, Sector V, Salt Lake,
Kolkata 700 091.
2. The Manager / Competent Person,
Family Credit Limited,
having its office at Technopolis, 7th floor, Wing a, Plot 4,
Block BP, Sector V, Salt Lake,
Kolkata 700 091.
3. Amita Auto Centre,
having its office / show room at Andul Purbapara,
Andul Mouri, Howrah 711 302. .…………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak .
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sanjib Das, against the o.ps., Family Credit Limited, and the Manager of said Family Credit Limited and Amit Auto Centre, praying for direction upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 to issue NOC in favour of the petitioner and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the petitioner for their negligence as well as mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he purchased a motor cycle with registration no. WB 14F 9593 from the o.p. no. 3, Amita Auto Centre, and he purchased the said motor cycle on 25.11.2010 having obtained loan from the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 that he would repay the loan in equal monthly installments of Rs. 1,239/- and having paid the same E.M.Is. on 05.09.2013 when he approached the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 then they did not issue no objection certificate in his favour. The petitioner sent notice through speed post but the o.ps. did not issue the same and the o.ps. have no intention to issue the same and thus depriving the petitioner from his right to receive the N.O.C. Thus the o.ps. neglected on their part and harassed the petitioner, who is entitled to compensation for such negligence of the o.ps. as well as for such harassment of the petitioner.
- The o.ps. contested the case by filing a written version denying the allegations against them and submitted that the petitioner is not a consumer under Section 2(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986 and he availed of a loan to purchase a new two wheeler. It is not true that the o.ps. did not issue the NOC after receiving all the E.M.Is. but the petitioner never came to the office of the o.p. for collecting the N.O.Cs. and thus the same was not handed over to him. The o.ps. have already revalidated the N.O.Cs. and tried to contact the petitioner but could not contact him and so the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation as prayed for and the case of the petitioner be dismissed.
- Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. The petitioner filed affidavit as well as documents which proved the fact clearly that he took loan from the o.p. no. 1 and repaid the loan as could be noticed from the loan documents as he went on paying E.M.Is. Rs. 1,293/- per month and in their written version the o.ps. also accepted that they were ready and willing to handover the N.O.C. to the petitioner but could not handover the same as they could not contact him and they again submitted that they revalidated the N.O.C. for handing over the same to the petitioner.
- This Forum heard the ld. counsel of the petitioner as well as o.ps. and keeping in mind the cases of the parties that the petitioner took loan from the o.ps. and repaid the same by paying monthly installments of Rs. 1,293/- per month and paid the whole sum amounting to Rs. 42,669/- and the o.ps. are also ready and willing to handover the N.O.C. to him. There is no evidence coming from the petitioner that he attended the office of the o.ps. and they denied to handover the N.O.C. to him and thus it would not be wise on the part of the Forum to allow compensation in favour of the petitioner as no negligence is found on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 because they revalidated the N.O.C. for handing over the same to the petitioner who produced no documentthat he attended the office of the o.p. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to get his N.O.C. from his o.ps. but not entitled to any compensation in the absence of any cogent documents that he attended the office of the o.ps. or send any letter so that the o.ps. could know his present address.
In the result, the application succeeds in part.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 144 of 2015 ( HDF 144 of 2015 ) be allowed on contest without costs against the O.Ps. 1 & 2 and dismissed against o.p. no. 3.
The petitioner is entitled to the N.O.C. and the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 are directed to hand over the N.O.C. to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of this order or file the same before this Forum within 15 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner would be liberty to put the order in execution.
The prayers in respect of compensation and litigation costs are denied considering the special circumstances of the case.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
