West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/171/2017

Ajoy Kumar Kar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Cholamndalam Invest & Finance Co.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sourav Ghosh

24 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

  Pulak Kumar Singha, President-in Charge,

                                                                                                          and

                                                                                           Sagarika Sarkar, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.171/2017.

 

Sri Ajoy Kumar Kar, S/o-Haru Charan Kar

at Vill.Bachurdoba, Ward No.2,P.O.&  P.S.-Jhargram,

                                                   Dist-Jhargram.                                                                                                                                 …………..Complainant.

                                                                                                -Vs-                                                                                                                       

1. The Manager, Cholamandalam Invest &Finance Co.Ltd.

Kharagpur Branch, 3^rd Floor, S,A,I,Complex,

                           Opposite L.I.C. Building,P.O.-Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur(T),   

                   Dist.-Paschim Medinipur,Pin-721305.

                                              ……………O.P.No.1.

2. The Manager, Cholamandalam Invest &Finance Co.Ltd.

 At 55/55/1,Chowdhury Estate,

Chowrangi Road,5^th Floor,Kolkata-700071.

                                                                                                         ...……….….O.P.No.2.

                                                  3. The Manager, Cholamandalam Invest &Finance Co.Ltd.

                                                                   At Dare House,1^st Floor,

                                                               No.2  N.S.C.Bose Road,Chennai-600001.

                                                                                                         ………………O.P.No.3.

                                                  

              For the Complainant: Mr. Sourav Ghosh,Advocate.

              For the O.P.              : Mr. Somnath Guin, Advocate.

                                                          

                                                                                Date of filling : 09/11/2017                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                   Decided on   : 24/08/2018

                               

                                                                                                                                             Contd………P/2.

 

                                                                                                            -2-

 

ORDER

                          Pulak Kumar Singha :– Complainant files this case u/s 12 of the C.P. Act. In short the case of the complainant is that complainant took loan of Rs.10,73,500/- for purchasing one Truck bearing No.WB-33B/8996 on 31.5.2013 from O.P.No.1with a condition to repayment of loan by 59 monthly installments of Rs.25,655/- in each month. Complainant had already paid entire dues on 14.10.2016 but O.P.No.1did not issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant. O.P. also never issued any money receipt and payment statements. Complainant met with O.P.No.1 and claimed No Objection Certificate but O.P.No.1rather claimed further Rs.1,00,000/-. Complainant sent legal notice to the O.Ps. for issuing No Objection Certificate but O.Ps. did not reply. Complainant approached before this Forum for getting redressal as per prayer of his complaint.

      O.Ps. contested the case by filing Written Objection denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable. As per terms and condition of loan agreement  the vehicle in question is hypothecated to the O.Ps.as security for repayment of loan, the complainant defaulted in making payment of the EMIs. Complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hand as such he is not entitled to any of the relief as prayed for.

                                   

                                                                                                 Decision with Reasons.

                 We travelled over the complaint, written objection, documents, evidence and considered the argument by both parties. Fact of the case that complainant for purchasing a vehicle took loan of Rs.10,73,500/-(Rupees Ten Lakhs seventy-three thousand five hundred) from O.P.No.1 on 31.5.2013 with hire purchase agreement and as per agreement repayment will be made by 59 monthly installments of Rs.25,655/- in each month. Complainant submitted that he has paid total dues but O.P. did not issue No Objection Certificate to the complainant in respect of no dues of loan amount. O.P. denied the version of complainant and submits that complainant defaulted in making the timely payment of the EMIs as such complainant surrendered his vehicle being No.WB-33B/8996 to O.P.No.1 and at the time of loan amount was due as on 23.8.2016 Total of Rs.7,01,075 including overdues interest. O.P. further submits that the O.Ps.Re-finance the vehicle being No.WB-33B/8996 in favour of  one Sk.Kurban with an agreement but complainant refused to appear before R.T.A.,Midnapore to transfer the vehicle in favour of Sk.Kurban. So, O.Ps.are unable to issue no due certificate in favour of complainant.

                                                                                                                                                                       Contd………P/3.

 

 

                                                                                                         -3-

            Complainant in support of his case adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief and complainant also cross-examined by O.Ps. O.P. did not adduce any evidence on their behalf. It appears from the evidence of complainant that he had paid all dues of loan amount and by sending legal notice on 19.6.17 and 20.6.17 to O.P.No.2 & 3 in respect of paid full dues of loan amount and claiming for issuance of “no dues certificate” but none of the O.Ps. did not give any reply nor put any question in cross-examination to the complainant to submit documents in respect of payment dues, rather O.Ps. kept silence themselves against such allegations. O.Ps. ought to have sent letters to the complainant for claiming loan dues amount or sent a notice for repossessing  the vehicle and as transfer the vehicle in favour of other person. But O.Ps. did not take such step or denied the statement of complainant in respect of full payment of loan amount by adducing any evidence. In the written objection O.Ps. submitted that complainant surrendered his vehicle in question on 23.8.16 due to non payment of dues of loan but complainant denying it in evidence. It also appears from the Original Registration Certificate that vehicle in question is exist in the name of complainant along with the name of hypothecator. Complainant submitted net copies of loan account details as on 17.10.2017 which reveals in Third page, it is mentioned that other overdue Rs.0, Loan status –closed , Total overdue Rs.0, and NOC-No.

            In the written objection O.Ps. stated that they have made Re hire purchase agreement with one Sk.Kurban where till then the name of complainant is exist in the Registration Certificate as owner of the vehicle as per M.V. Act and rules. O.Ps. without prior notice or intimation to complainant done such act. From the net copies loan status of complainant in respect of vehicle No.WB-33B/8996 is closed whereas per documents vehicle owner as per R.C. Book is in the name of complainant so, it can easily be says that complainant paid total dues of loan amount as loan was granted for purchasing the said vehicle. O.Ps .got enough opportunity to prove that dues of loan amount is exist till date and such net copies of loan status are false or fabricated but O.Ps. kept silence in respect of loan status which embodied in the net copies of loan documents of O.Ps. office record.

             In view of the above discussions in our considered opinion that complainant has proved his case as such he is entitled to get an order.

     The complaint case succeeds.

            

                               Hence, it is,

                                                           ORDERED

                           that the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.Ps.

    

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…….P/4.

 

                                                                                                     -4-

 

 O.Ps. are directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of loan, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and deficiency of service and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order.

 Failure to comply this order, O.Ps. shall be liable to pay penal cost of Rs.2,000/- per month to be paid to the Legal Aid Fund of this Forum till realization.

                                       Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

               Dictated and Corrected by me

                        Sd/-P.K. Singha                                                      Sd/- S. Sarkar                       

                        President-in-Charge                                                       Member.                               

                            District Forum

                         Paschim Medinipur.