ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. N.T. Prabhakaran, has filed this complaint before the Forum on 17.06.09 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He entered into an Agreement with M/s Standard Chartered Bank, for the purchase of his car and he had closed the loan as per agreement dated. 01.12.2001. M/s Standard Chartered Bank, by their letter. Dtd. 06.03.06 informed him that they have sold, transferred and assigned and its right title and interest in favour of the opposite party. Opposite party had also intimated the above matter to him. He had closed the entire loan in the year 2006 itself. As such the opposite party is bound to issue No Objection Certificate regarding the charge, for clearing the hypothecation entered in the RC book. He has represented on several times before the opposite party for getting No objection certificate and for the duplicate key of his vehicle together with the form no. 35 in duplicate for presenting the same before the RTO. Since there was no positive steps for the said matters, he sent an advocate on 13.05.09. Opposite party had accepted the said notice on 15.05.09, and they failed to sent any reply. Hence this complaint seeking relief. 2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Their counsel appeared and filed vakalath. But the opposite party has not filed any version, even though several chances were given for filing the version. Considering the long delay in filing version and their absence in the Forum, the opposite party was set exparte by this Forum on 21.01.10. 3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, this Forum raised the following issues. 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost from the opposite party? 4. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in the support of his case and produced documents in evidences - Ext.A1 to A9 – marked. Ext. A1 is the letter of the Standard Chartered Bank to the complainant, stating the take over of the concern by opposite party. Ext A2 is the letter dtd. 16.05.06 of the opposite party to the complainant, regarding the charge of the Loan number pertaining to the complainant. Ext. A3 is the letter dtd. 19.12.07 to the opposite party requesting to take further required steps since he has closed the A/c. Ext. A4 is the letter dtd. 18.12.07 to the opposite party requesting to issue NOC and other documents together with the duplicate key of his vehicle. Ext. A5 is the letter dtd. 09.01.08 of the complainant to the opposite party, requesting for the said matter. Ext A6 is the letter dtd. 19.04.08 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party for the said relief. Ext A7 is the copy of the RC book of the vehicle. Ext. A8 is the copy of the RC book showing the entry of Hypothecation charge in favour M/s Standard Chartered Bank. Ext. A8 is the copy of the RC book with the details of Tax remittance of the said vehicle. Ext. A9 is the copy of the advocate notice dtd. 13.05.09. 5. On a careful readings of the entire matters of this case and the documents given in evidences by the complainant, it can be seen that the opposite party has taken the assets of M/s Standard Chartered Bank, along with the entire aspects along with title and interest. As such the opposite party has intimated the details of the take over, and intimated the future transactions to be taken by the complainant (Ext. A2). It is alleged by the complainant, that he had closed the vehicle loan in the year 2006 itself. He had also requested the opposite party to take immediate further steps for the release of the NOC and form No. 35 for the clearance of the Hypothecation charge noted in the RC book, together with the duplicate key of the vehicle which was in the possession of the opposite party. He sent several representations to the (Ext. A4, A%, A6) opposite party requesting to release the above said documents. But the opposite party has not shown any sincere effort to release the documents and key to the complainant. The opposite party has also not turned up against the advocate notice dtd. 13.05.09. After taking over the entire liabilities from M/s Standard Chartered Bank, the opposite party is fully bound to comply with the requirements of the clients in connection with the previous Loan matters and other transactions. Any kind of deviation from the liabilities of the opposite party will be treated as deficiency in service and gross negligence. In this case the complainant had requested the opposite party several in times, to release the required documents, and duplicate key of his vehicle. But the opposite party has taken a negligence view regarding that. It is further noticed that even though the opposite parties counsel filed vakalath in this case, they have not cared to file a detailed version showing the reasons for delay for releasing the documents and duplicate key to the complainant. This shows the irresponsible attitude of the opposite party in this matter. The entire action of the opposite party shows the grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence by way of denial of release of NOC, form No. 35 in time and duplicate key to the complainant. For this the complainant is fully entitled to get compensation and costs from the opposite party. In this context, we are of the strong view that the allegations of the complainant are to be treated as genuine and complaint is to be allowed. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate in favour of the RTO, Alappuzha for cancellation of the charge of Hypothecation of the vehicle bearing No. KL4/K 2920 of the complainant and form No. 35 termination of agreement of hire purchase or Hypothecation in duplicates for cancellations of Hypothecation entry in the Registration book and return the duplicate key of the said vehicle to the complainant, together with a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards the compensation for the mental agony, physical strain, in convenience and loss of the complainant by way of refusal of release of the required documents and key to the complainant, in time by the opposite party, and pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as cost of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to comply the order within 20 days from the date of receipt pf this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of February 2010. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- Ext. A1 - Lr. dated. 09.03.06 Ext. A2 - Lr. dated. 06.05.06 Ext. A3 - Lr. dated. 19.12.07 Ext. A4 - Lr. dated. 18.12.07 Ext. A5 - Lr. dated. 09.01.08 Ext. A6 - Lr. dated. 19.04.08 Ext. A7 - Copy of RC Book Ext. A8 - Copy of RC book with details of Tax remittance Ext. A9 - Advocate notice dtd. 13.05.09 Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Smt;Shajitha Beevi] Member | | 
