O R D E R.

By Smt.  Bindu. R,  President:

          This complaint is filed by C. Udaya kumar  stating that he had availed a loan from Muthoot Capital Service Ltd., Kainatty,  Kalpetta for the purchase of a vehicle and had purchased Suzuki Access 125 (KL73 B 2942)  in the year 2017.  Muthoot Capital Services Ltd is made as Opposite Party  in the complaint.  The Complainant  states that, he was working  at Munnar and in the surrounding places and due to the natural calamity, during that period, the Complainant had lost  his job and even then also he had paid the monthly instalments of loan in time.  But  due the pandemic covid the Complainant could not  remit the amount of instalments in time.  Hence he proposed to remit the entire balance amount for obtaining an NOC from the Opposite Party.  Since the Complainant was working at Sreerangapattanan during that period he had entrusted an amount of Rs.4,444/-  to  one of his friends to remit  at Pattambi branch of the Opposite Party which was paid on 02.11.2020 against loan No.17131251 and the Opposite Party issued a fore closure  bill and told that the NOC shall be sent to the Complainant in his residential address within 10 days.

          2. The Complainant had contacted the Opposite party for NOC since he has not received it within the promised time.    Hence upon enquiry with the Opposite Party it was  learnt that NOC can be given only if an amount of Rs.24/-  is  paid  in addition to the amount already paid.  Thereafter it was told by the Opposite Party to contact their  Head Office and when the Complainant contacted the Head Office and enquired about the reason for remitting the additional amount,  it was told that  NOC shall be given only if the Complainant remit an amount of Rs.354/-  in addition to the amount paid by the Complainant.  The Complainant alleges that the  Opposite Party had not attended the telephone call made by the Complainant and hence the Complainant again contacted their Pattambi Office and finally remitted  an amount of Rs.372/-  on 19.01.2021 since  the NOC was essential for the Complainant and hence he had bended  towards  the demand of the Opposite Party.  Since the Complainant had not received the NOC in time it  is alleged by the Complainant that he had to undergo severe hardship since he could not exchange his vehicle and there by caused mental agony  which are all the result  and output of the deficient  action from the side of the Opposite Party and also the above action is a clear case of  unfair trade practice and therefore the Complainant approached this Commission  seeking for getting relief of Rs.30,000/-,  towards the financial  loss due to  delay in getting  NOC along with other reliefs.

          3. Upon notice from the Commission the  1^st and 2^nd  Opposite Party appeared  and filed their joint version.   The  Opposite Party admitted that the Complainant had availed a loan and had remitted the loan instalments regularly and had paid an amount of Rs.4,444/- on  02.11.2020 at  Pattambi  Branch of the Opposite Party.  The exact amount of the EMI payable by  the Complainant was Rs.4,914/- as per their calculation and as a matter of policy of the benefit of fore closure of Rs.470/-  was   allowed to the Complainant.  The Complainant has to pay the interest  accrued during the moratorium period for two months and hence the Complainant has given instructions to pay that amount also.  The  Opposite Party stated that they have never told the Complainant that the NOC will be sent in the address within  10 days.

          4. The Opposite Party further states that  on account of  Covid 19, there was  some technical issues occurred,  and  the problems will be resolved etc stated by the Complainant as told by the Opposite Party is also incorrect,  and also that the direction issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant to remit the amount  of Rs.24/- etc and had not attended the calls of the Complainant had also been denied by the Opposite Party.

          5. The statement of the Opposite party is that the Complainant had availed a vehicle loan of Rs.66,500/-  on 11.09.2017  and the Complainant had regularly repaid the EMI till 05.05.2020.  Thereafter  moratorium  was declared  for the months of July and August and hence the loan period was extended  upto  December 2020.   The repayment of the loan has started on September 2020  and the EMI for September was paid on 17.10.2020.  On 02.11.2021  the Complainant had paid Rs.4,444/-  which was the  interest amount of  October and November 2020 and interest amount of Rs.372/-  was due from  the Complainant for delayed payment and that of the moratorium period.  The said amount was calculated manually and the Complainant was not ready to pay the amount.  The Opposite Party states at this stage that the Complainant started threatening  the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party issued  the NOC as and when the Complainant remitted the entire amount.

          6. The Complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A4 (marked subject to proof since the  documents are photocopies) and filed proof affidavit  Opposite Party produced Ext.B1. The Complainant was examined  in box as PW1 and OPW1 was also examined from the side of the Opposite Party.  Later the Complainant produced  original receipt dated 19.01.2021 regarding repayment of Rs.372/-  which is marked as Ext.A3.

          7. The Commission upon verification of the contents of the Complaint and also after making  a thorough probe into  the over all aspects of the case based on records produced from  either side has decided to examine the following points.

1.  Whether the Complainant had sustained to any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If so whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation from the  Opposite Party?
3. Costs of proceedings if any.

8. It is admitted by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party  and Opposite Party had provided loan assistance to the Complainant. The Complainant had repaid his loan amount till 05.05.2020 is also undisputed.  Subsequently the Complainant had not paid the loan for the month of July 2020 and was paid on 15.07.2020.  Thereafter the customer has given moratorium for July and August and  thereafter the repayment started from September 2020.  The EMI for the month of September  was paid on 17.10.2020.  On 02.11.2021  the Complainant had paid Rs.4,444/-  which is the instalment amount for the month of October and November 2020.  The amount  initially claimed  by the Opposite Party is only  Rs.372/-  which is the interest accrued  during the moratorium period and interest for delayed instalments.  Actually the Complainant enquired about the required amount for  closing the loan and the Opposite Party issued a fore closure bill to  Complainant. 

9. In this case  the Complainant was contesting  the case in person and the documents produced by the Complainant are photocopies marking of which are objected  by the Opposite Party,  in which Ext.A1 is  the photocopy of the RC book of the vehicle.  Ext.A2 is the photocopy  of the receipt showing payment of Rs.4,444/-  on 02.11.2020,  Ext.A3 is the photocopy of the receipt showing  payment of Rs.372/-  on 19.01.2021,  Ext.A4 is the photocopy of the statement of account.  During  the evidence and  also during argument,  the Complainant submitted that the original bills are with him and the Complainant is ready to produce the  same and accordingly the Complainant produced the original bill of Ext.A3.  In this case it is evident from  the title word of Ext.A2  dated 02.11.2020 bearing No.23700054 regarding payment of Rs.4,444/- and  Ext.A3 dated 09.01.2021 bearing No.24215781 regarding  payment of Rs.372/-  that these are fore closure bills issued by the  Opposite Party to the Complainant.  The receipt of both the amounts ie Rs.4,444/-  on 02.11.2021 and  Rs.372/- on 09.01.2021 are admitted by the  Opposite  Parties.  The Opposite Party had not  issued  NOC to the Complainant even after issuing  a fore closure bill.  Need less to say that the Opposite Party had made believe  the Complainant that  the amount due  to the Opposite Party from the side of the Complainant has been cleared as and when the Opposite Party issued a fore closure bill to the Complainant.  From  Ext.A3  it can be seen that the Opposite Party accepted further amount from  the Complainant for the closure of the loan and for issuance of NOC. It is very clearly shows that the Complainant sustained unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Even though the Complainant alleged that he had sustained financial loss due to the delay in issuing the NOC by the 1^st  Opposite party there is absolutely no evidence to prove the allegation. Considering  the entire aspects in detail  this Commission is of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation for the mental agony  and other inconvenience caused to the Complainant.  Therefore point No.1 is proved in favour of the Complainant.

10. Since point No.1 is proved infavour of the Complainant the following orders are issued.

1. The Opposite Parties  are directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-  (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony and the other inconveniences caused to the Complainant.
2. An amount of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) shall be paid by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant towards the cost of proceedings.

11. Both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount ordered above.

12. Needless to say that if the amount ordered as above is not paid within one month of the receipt of copy of the order the Complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 6% for the same  except for the amount awarded as  cost to the Complainant from the date of order till the date of realisation.

Hence the complaint is partly allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected   by   me   and  pronounced  in  the  Open  Commission on this the   30^th   day of June  2023.

          Date of filing:23.01.2021.

                                                                             PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :    Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.            C. Udayakumar.           Complainant.       

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.           Biswas. B.                             Officer - Collection

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.    Copy of Certificate of Registration.            

A2.     Copy of Receipt.                              dt:02.11.2020.

A3.      Receipt.                                           dt:19.01.2021.

A4.      Copy of e-mail.                               

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1.    Biswas. B.                                Officer – Collection.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                                                MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                                                                 MEMBER    :  Sd/-