- Sri Suresh Kumar Khetawat,
Tarun Ram Phukan Road, Nagaon Town,
Mouza-Town, P.O. Haibargaon-782002
P.S. Nagaon Sadar, Dist. Nagaon (Assam) and
19A, Sarat Bose Road,
P.S. Bhawanipore, Kolkata-20. ________ Complainant
____Versus____
- The Manager,
Bank of America,
8, India Exchange Palace, Kolkata-1, Head
Office: Bank of America, N.A. Express
Tower, Narimanpoint, Mumbai.
- The Manager,
ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. 83, Topsia Road,
Kolkata-71, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani,
Head Office; ABN AMRO Bank, N.V.
Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai. ________ Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, Hon’ble President
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 37 Dated 03/12/2014
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant purchased a Maruti 800 AC car under a hire purchase agreement by and between the complainant and o.p. no.1 under a Car Loan A/C No.354193 in the month of July 1999. As per terms and conditions of hire purchase agreement complainant had paid Rs.38,408/- as margin money plus Rs.4725/- as advance installment plus Rs.2455/- as processing charges. Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.45,588/- vide cheque no.128047 of Standard Chartered Bank, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata and also handed over 59 post dated cheques of equated installments of Rs.4725/- each. After delivery of said hypothecated vehicle on 4.10.99 complainant had received a letter by o.p. nos.1 and 2 that o.p. no.1 had sold its retail Auto Finance to o.p. no.2. The letter had clearly mentioned how the transfer process would be effected. It is also stated that on full payment of his car loan o.p. no.2 will issue NOC for removal of hypothecation of his vehicle in question. Complainant had paid his EMIs of Rs.4725/- regularly and cleared up all his installments and liquidated his car loan on June, 2004 within the stipulated period. O.ps. have realized a total sum of Rs.3,24,363/- from complainant. In the mean while complainant had shifted from Kolkata to Nagaon (Assam) and complainant conveyed his changed residential address to o.p. no.2 with a request to issue NOC. But till date neither of o.ps. sent the NOC to complainant. Being permanently settled in Assam it was not possible for complainant to follow up the matter regularly in this regard. Hence, he had sent reminder letter dt.19.2.06 and 14.4.06. But o.ps. did not give any reply. Thereafter, complainant sent advocate’s notice demanding issuance of NOC but o.ps. neither issue NOC nor made any reply to that effect. As such, finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case with prayer to return a sum of Rs.3,24,363/-, Rs.2,75,000/- for repairing, maintenance and taxes from June 2004 to June 2009 along with compensation and cost and issuance of NOC.
Both o.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed separate w/v. In their w/v o.p. no.1 has stated that there is no cause of action against o.p. no.1. With the transfer of retail business o.p. no.1 has no liability towards the complainant and as such, complainant has made repayment of car loan to o.p. no.2 till liquidation of the loan account. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1, the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In their w/v o.p. no.2 has denied all material allegation interalia stated that complainant is not a consumer as there is a relationship of complainant and o.p. no.2 is of debtor and creditor. O.p. no.2 has also stated that to avoid making payment of his due and to prevent o.p. no.2 from realizing their dues, complainant filed the instant case. Complainant had suppressed his default. A cheque was dishonoured for the installment payment due on 16.6.02 and as such, as on 18.5.10 a sum of Rs.17,489.32 has become due and payable by complainant to o.p. no.2. It is also stated that as soon as the outstanding of the said loan will be paid by complainant, o.p. no.2 is ready to issue NOC. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2 and as such, complainant will not be entitled to get any relief and the case is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant entered into a hire purchase agreement dt.27.7.1999 with o.p. no.1 under a Car Loan A/C No.354193 in the month of July 1999. Accordingly, complainant paid the advance amount and handed over the 59 PDCs of Rs.4725/- each. On 4.10.99 complainant received a letter from o.ps. and came to know that o.p. no.1 had sold its retail Auto Finance to o.p. no.2. Since the retail banking business of o.p. no.1 including liability had been taken over by o.p. no.2 repayment of car loan amount was received by o.p. no.2 from complainant. So, at present there is no relationship with o.p. no.1 and complainant. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.1 at present since all liability has been taken over by o.p. no.2 from o.p. no.1.
It is admitted fact that the installments would be payable from 16.8.99 to 16.6.04. Accordingly, complainant handed over 59 PDCs to o.p. no.1. In the mean while all business liability were shifted from o.p. no.1 to o.p. no.2. In the w/v o.p. no.2 has stated that one cheque of Rs.4725/- issued by complainant was dishonoured. When the tenure of the loan was completed, complainant approached o.p. no.2 for issuance of NOC but o.p. no.2 did not give any reply to complainant that why the NOC would not be give to him. They have never disclosed the matter that one cheque was dishonoured and for that reason the outstanding amount became Rs.17,489.32 as on 18.5.10. However, o.p. no.2 has admitted that NOC had not been issued to complainant and they are ready to issue NOC as soon as the outstanding loan will be paid by complainant vide paragraph no.15 of their w/v. As o.p. no.2 never discloses the fact that due to dishonour of one cheque on 16.6.02 NOC had not been issued to complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.2. When complainant approached before the Forum thereafter o.p. no.2 discloses the reason for non issuance of NOC. Therefore complainant is entitled to get relief in part.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest against o.p. no.2 and dismissed against o.p. no.1 on contest. O.p. no.2 is directed to issue the NOC in respect of car loan a/c. no. 354193 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of payment of Rs.4725/- (Rupees four thousand seven hundred twenty five) only from the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
