By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant availed vehicle finance from first opposite party which was arranged through second and third opposite parties. As per the hire purchase agreement executed between complainant and first opposite party a total sum of Rs.8,66,586/- was to be repaid in 47 EMI of Rs.18,438/- each. The complainant repaid the entire loan through second opposite party for which receipts were issued. After repayment, the complainant requested opposite parties to issue the hypothecation Termination Certificate. But opposite parties demanded a further sum of Rs.1,69,452/- which is totally baseless and illegal. Complainant is not liable to pay any further sum. It is alleged that opposite parties are trying to collect illegal amount and make wrongful gain. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice issued to first opposite party was served. First opposite party did not appear and did not file any version. He was set exparte on 04-8-2008. Though second and third opposite parties entered appearance through their respective counsels, only second opposite party has filed version. Supplemental fourth opposite party was impleaded as per orders in I.A.105/09. Notice to supplemental opposite party No.4 was served. No version filed by supplemental opposite party No.4.

3. Second opposite party filed version admitting the finance transaction. It is submitted that complainant did not remit the instalments within the scheduled time stipulated in the agreement. Therefore complainant is liable to pay charges for delayed payments. From the statement of accounts an amount of Rs.1,93,042.96 is still due from complainant as on 30-9-2008. That complainant is not entitled to No Objection Certificate without clearing the dues. That he is not entitled to any reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

4. Evidence consists of the sworn affidavits of the power of attorney holder of complainant and Exts.A1 series and A2 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Ext.B1 marked for opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. The complainant is aggrieved that even after repayment of the entire finance amount opposite party demanded Rs.1,69,454/- and rescinded from issuing the hypothecation termination letter. The complaint is resisted by opposite party contending that an amount of Rs.1,93,042.96 is still due from the complainant.

6. Ext.A1 is the repayment chart which shows that the loan availed is Rs.6,70,000/-. The first instalment date is 27-5-2004 and the last instalment date is 27-3-2008. The total amount thus to be repaid as per Ext.A1 is Rs.8,66,586/- and EMI is Rs.18,438/-. Ext.A1 receipts show that complainant has paid instalments regularly though there is slight delay in repayments made in one or two months. As per Ext.A2 receipts the total payment made by complainant is Rs.9,03,994/- and the last instalment was paid on 26-3-2008. This total amount paid by complainant is not disputed by opposite party. It is the case of opposite party that complainant failed to make the payments within scheduled dates and therefore he is liable to pay penal interest @ 36% as per the agreement. But opposite party has not produced the said agreement. Much thrust was placed on Ext.B1 by the learned counsel Sri Sarjoon K.V. appearing for opposite party, and contended that complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,06,748/- as insurance expenses together with default charges of Rs.21,770.96. As already discussed apart from the vague affirmation there is no evidence to show that opposite party is entitled to collect penal charges. The contention that complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,06,768/- as insurance charges is not supported by pleadings or any specific affirmation in the affidavit. No amount of evidence can be led into a plea which was never put forward. For these reasons the contention of opposite party that complainant is liable to pay further sum of Rs.1,93,042/- is untenable and unacceptable to us. We have to conclude that complainant has paid the entire loan amount. The non issuance of hire purchase termination letter even after repayment of loan is definitely deficiency in service. Complainant has succeeded in

establishing a case in his favour. We find opposite parties deficient in service. We hold that, in the circumstances of the case the issuance of hire purchase termination letter would be adequate relief to the complainant. All other claims disallowed.

7. In the result we allow the complaint and order that first opposite party shall issue hire purchase termination letter to the complainant in regard to the vehicle KL10/T-238 within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which on request made by the complainant a copy of this order shall be communicated to fourth opposite party who on receipt of copy of this order shall cancel the endorsement in favour of opposite party in regard to the vehicle KL10/T 238. We make no order as to costs.

Dated this 15th day of January, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1series and A2

Ext.A1series : Receipts (46 Nos.) received from second opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Power of Attorney.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1

Ext.B1 : Details of agreement.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER