By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an order directing the 1^st Opposite party to issue No Objection Certificate and loan cancellation endorsement on the Registration Certificate of the car KL 12C 1437 and in the even if 1^st Opposite Party fails to comply the direction above, 2^nd Opposite Party to cancel the loan endorsement in the Registration Certificate and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the loss and damages and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

2. The Complainant's case in brief as follows:- The Complainant availed a loan Rs.2,65,000/- from 1^st Opposite Party on his Ambassodor Car bearing Registration No. KL 12C 1437 on 14.05.2005. As per the scheme Chart, the Complainant has to start repayment at the rate of Rs.5,900/- monthly, on 21.06.2010 in 58 intalments ending on 18.08.2010. The Complainant had paid a total sum of Rs.3,45,000/- and demanded no objection certificate and clearance certificate for 1^st Opposite Party. Then 1^st Opposite Party demanded 10,000/- more from the Complainant. The Complainant then send notice to the 1^st Opposite Party, but the Opposite Parties did not respond. Aggrieved by this, the Complainant preferred this Complaint for the deficiency of service of 1^st Opposite Party and for the redressal of his grievance.

3. On receipt of this complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties filed version. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.B1 is marked at the time of cross examination of the Complainant by Opposite Party's counsel after confronting the document. Opposite Parties not adduced any oral evidence. On perusing the complaint, proof affidavit, documents of Complainant and Opposite Parties the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party?

2. What order as to cost and compensation?

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant here in produced repayment chart before the Forum and is marked as Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice send by the Complainant to the

1^st Opposite Party demanding to issue no objection certificate. Ext.A3 is the acknowledgment of notice. Ext.B1 is the notice issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant demanding dues. 1^st Opposite Party filed version stating that there is a loan agreement between the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party and the terms and conditions of the agreement specifically stipulate the parties for approaching an arbitrator in case of any dispute arise between the parties. Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. More over, as per the terms of agreement instalments were to be paid on the 21^st day of every month. If the amount is not paid in time, it attracts additional charges in case of dishonour of the cheques. If the payment is affected in time the petitioner need not pay any additional amount other than what is stipulated in the agreement. Delayed payment attracts additional finance charges. The Complainant has to pay an amount of Rs.37,001/- towards additional finance charges, Rs.2,250/- towards cheque return charges and Rs.875/- towards legal charges. The Complainant ought to have paid a total amount of Rs.39,376/- under the above counts and demand for the no objection certificate. So there is no deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party. Opposite Party No.2 filed version stating that as per section 51(3) of Motor vehicle act, application for cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate is to be made in Form 35 duly signed by the registered owner and financier and also a fee of Rs.175/- to the remitted as cancellation fee of hire purchase endorsement. In this case no application has been received by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the cancellation of hire purchase agreement. The case 1^st Opposite party is that the Complainant made delayed payments which attracts additional charges. In the cross examination of complainant, the Complainant admitted that “ instalment \v CSbv¡v hogvN hcp¯nbXn\v]ng AS¨ncp¶p.” “ instalment XobXn sXän ]WaS¨m ]ng ]enibpw finance charge Dw hcpsa¶v Rm³ a\knem¡nbncp¶p.” “I¼\nbn 7 sN¡pIÄ instalment sâ AShntebv¡v sImSp¯n«p­v. AXn 3, 4 sN¡pIÄ A¡u­n ]WanÃm¯Xn\m aS§nbn«p­v. instalment sXän AS¨Xn\v I¼\n ]ng ]enibpw additional finance charge Dw CuSm¡p¶Xn F\n¡v XÀ¡anÔ. Here the Complainant did not produce any receipt for the payment of fine for the delayed payments. The Complainant admitted that 3 or 4 cheques were dishonoured . If cheque is dishonoured, it normally attracts cheque return charges and that is to be born by 1^st Opposite Party. 1^st Opposite Party spend Rs.875/- for legal charges. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of 1^st Opposite Party in this regard. But regarding additional finance charges of Rs.37,001/- , absolutely there is no criteria or data is supplied by the 1^st Opposite Party for calculation of additional finance charges before the Forum. If 1^st Opposite Party’s case is genuine , they should produce the data. Here in this case, 1^st Opposite Party not adduced oral evidence except by filing version. So the Forum analysed that 1^st Opposite Party’s claim of Rs.37,001/- towards additional finance charges is something exorbitant. 1^st Opposite Party produced a ruling reported in 2010(1)CCC85(NS), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi ruled that if instalments were paid late, the finance company is justified in claiming additional finance charges. Such the additional finance charges claimed by the 1^st Opposite Party should be normal. Therefore, the Forum after analyzing all the evidence, reached to a conclusion that the 1^st Opposite Party is entitled to get Rs.2,250/- towards cheque return charges, Rs.875/- towards legal expense and Rs.6,000/- in toto towards additional finance charges. The Forum did not find any deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

5. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found as stated above, the Complainant is not entitled to get compensation and cost of the proceedings.

In the result, 1^st Opposite Party is directed to issue No Objection Certificate over the vehicle KL 12C 1437 Car owned by the Complainant on remittance of Rs.9,125/- (Rupees Nine thousand One hundred and Twenty Five) only in toto by the Complainant. On receipt of Rs.9,125/- from the Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party is directed to issue no objection certificate over the above vehicle and 2^nd Opposite Party on getting through application with no objection certificate shall cancel the loan endorsement in the Registration Certificate within 30 days of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of May 2014.

Date of filing:06.10.2012.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant.

PW1 Francis Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Finance Scheme Chart.

A2. Reply Notice. dt:19.01.2012.

A3. Acknowledgment.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Letter. dt:01.10.2013.