The complainant’s case is that complainant purchased a motor cycle (Honda Activa) from the O.P. No.3 through financer O.P. No.1 & 2. O.P. No.1 financed Rs.25,648/- and agreement was made. Eighteen installment of Rs.1,692/- per month was fixed as per agreement. The vehicle was registered with Hooghly RTO beariungNo.WB16AC 2489 and started for paying monthly installment i.e. EMI of Rs.1692/- to the office of the O.P. No.1 upto 16 EMI. The complainant paid all the installment on 12.11.2013 at a time. After completion of total EMI of Rs.1692/- the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 to expunge the name of the complainant from the registration certificate and supply the NOC but the O.P. No.1 did not issue NOC. This NOC is necessary to expunge the name of the complainant from the registration book. The complainant sent lawyer’s letter on 18.3.2017 requesting to the said office for expunging the name of the complainant and supply the NOC. But nothing was done. Hence, this complaint.
The O.P. No.1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. The positive version of O.P. No.1 & 2 that there was due amount of Rs.9500/-. The O.P. No.1 & 2 made attempt to contact the customer, the complainant. But complainant did not come and phone of the complainant was switched off. Even after getting notice the O.P. No.1 & 2 tried to contact the complainant but they failed. In the month of June, O.P. informed the complainant about overdue charges and settlement was made i.e. charge of Rs.9500/- will be waived and his loan account will be settled by providing NOC. Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 & 2 closed the account on 29.8.2017 and given the NOC. So, the O.P. No.1 & 2 very clearly laid down on Para-17 that they closed the account on 29.8.2017 and also issued NOC. Hence, this case.
The complainant filed photocopies of payment receipts, a letter issued by Capital First Ltd., to the complainant, Demand draft of SBI, Tax receipt from RTO, Hooghly, Registration Certificate, Account statement and Advocate’s letter with postal receipt.
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer of the opposite party?
2.Whether the O.P. is liable for deficiency in service ?
3.Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISIPON WITH REASON
All the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion of this case.
It is fact that the complainant is a consumer. The O.Ps. have stated in the written version (Para-17) that after due waiving the charges they have closed his account on 29.8.2017 and have also given the NOC i.e. after 42 days of institution of this case. So, when the O.Ps. have already complied their duty although after institution of this case then as the grievances of the complainant against the O.P. No.1 & 2 has been fulfilled by the O.P. No.1 & 2, we are of opinion that no payment of compensation should be allowed as the complainant has been redressed and with the NOC the complainant shall cause his name to remove from registration certificate by the RTO, Hooghly. Hence, this case deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.
Let the copies of this case be supplied to the parties free of cost.
