ADV. RAVI SUSHA : MEMBER
Complainant is a consumer under section 2 [1] [d] of the Consumer Protection Act, that on 25..5..2001 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from the 1st opp.party Bank, to purchase a Tipper Lorry, KL-02 L 3070 by mortgaging the said Tiupper Lorry and 15 cents of landed property of the complainant, on condition to repay the loan amount by 60 installments commencing from 25..1..2001 expiring on 25..11..2006, that the said Tipper Lorry was operating in KMML on contract basis but the said Tipper Lorry had some manufacturing defects and the contract with the KMML was terminated, that though the Lorry had not operated regularly the complainant repaid Rs.7,61,000/- out of the loan amount and the interest accrued on it, that the agreed rate of interest was 13.5% per annum on diminishing rate, that subsequently, the complainant applied for rescheduling the loan and on the recommendations the complainant applied for a house loan to pay of the vehicle loan and an amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was sanctioned as house loan from SBT, Ayur Branch and lby using the said amount the vehicle loan in the opp.party bank was paid off by depositing Rs.3,30,000/- in the vehicle loan account, that even then the opp.party bank have not rescheduled the said vehicle loan, that the permit of the vehicle expired on 14..6..2006 and the C/F date was on 25..2..2007, that the 1st opp.party did not issue the NOC for renewal of permit and for CF which caused huge economic loss and severe mental agony to the complainant, that the tax payment of the vehicle became due, that all these occurred due to the deficiency of service from the side of the opp.party with intention to injure the complainant and the 1st opp.party deliberately stood to cause economic loss to the complainant.. Hence the complaint.
Opp.parties filed version contenting that the opp.parties admitted that the complainant had availed a medium term loan for Rs.6,50,000/-as mentioned in the complaint for purchasing a tipper lorry on an agreed interest rate of 13.5% floating with penal interest for defaulted payment, that it is also admitted that the vehicle is hypothecated to the bank and also has mortgaged 15 cents of landed property and house therein, owned by the complainant that it was very much stressed and high lighted in the agreement that the vehicle should be used as public carrier only without any binding contractual obligations, that however, the complainant left the vehicle being used by KMML that on the basis of a secret contract entered into by and between them, that this was in gross violation of terms of the loan agreement, that the opp.parties submit that the repayment of loan instalments was irregular from the very beginning, that the availment of housing loan from the Ayoor Branch of the opp.party bank, was based on her own decision and not on the basis of any directions from the opp.parties as alleged by her, that it is also denied that the housing loan of Rs.3,30,000/- availed by her was fully remitted to the vehicle account, that in the aforesaid circumstances the opp.parties could not accept the request of the complainant to issue NOC for renewal of permit for the sole reasons that the erroneously huge over due amount remained as a bad loan, that the complainant has not paid any substantial or bulk amount in the vehicle loan account even after the disbursal of the Housing Loan amount which she had received on dates 22.2.2005, 5..3..2005 and 19..4..2005. that in the above mentioned context these opp.parties have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as alleged and therefore they are not answerable or liable to pay any compensation whatsoever to the complainant. that these opp.parties submit that pursuant to deposit of Rs.50,000/- vide order of State Commission to issue No Objection Certificate to renew permit was due to delay of only few days due to some delay in taking over of charge by the new Manager . Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.
Points that would arise for consideration are:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties?
2. Reliefs and costs.
POINTS:
Complainant’s case is that he and his wife availed a vehicle loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from the opp.parties on 25..5..2001 for purchasing to tipper lorry for their livelihood. Permit of the tipper lorry expired on 15..6..2006. Complainant applied for NOC for renewal of the permit on 10..5..2006. Opp.parties withhold the NOC. NOC was issued only on 11.6..2008 after the order from the Hon’ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Due to that the complainant sustained huge loss.
Opp.parties case is that the repayment of loan instalments of the complainant was irregular from the very beginning itself The allegation that housing loan was availed to repay the vehicle loan is false. The complainant had never remitted any bulk amount towards the non performing account of the complainant. In such a situation the opp.parties were helpless in issuing the NOC for renewal of the vehicle permit.
In the case the main contention of the opp.parties is that the non-issuance of NOC for renewing the vehicle permit was due to the irregular repayments installments of loan amount.
According to the complainant even though the vehicle had manufacturing defect he had paid the vehicle loan as far as possible. After getting the housing loan amount, he had paid the said amount in the vehicle loan in the opp.party bank. Even then the opp.party bank have not re-scheduled the vehicle loan. For proving the said contention, the complainant produced Ext.P3 the opp.party bank’s statement of account. Opp.parties version is that the complainant was a chronic defaulter from the very beginning of the loan. On verifying Ext.P3 it can be seen that the complainant was not a chronic defaulter. He had paid the instalments upto 31..3..2006, not regularly Ext.P2 shows that the vehicle was not in a proper condition. It had some manufacturing defect. Anyway the complainant had paid the instalments from other sources. In such a situation, the opp.party bank should have shown some humanitarian approach towards the complainant for issuing NOC. Ext.P4 shows that the complainant had applied for Re-schedule of the loan after remitting a bulk amount towards the loan. That also denied by the opp.party. If the opp.party re-scheduled the loan on the basis of Ext.P4, the complainant could have remitted the installments as per the re-schedule condition.
According to the complainant the opp.party have no right to deny NOC for the permit of the vehicle on the basis of loan agreement, hypothecation deed and mortgage deed If the complainant is a chronic defaulter, the opp.party could have seized the vehicles lawfully and sold it for getting their loan amount. Without doing that mere withholding the NOC for renewal of permit of the vehicle is not a fair practice. The complainant would have able to repay the loan if the vehicle plied. It could not happened by the illegal act of the opp.party. The opp.party could not produce any documentary evidence justifying their version. According to the opp.party they are acting as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. But they did not produce any evidence before the Forum that RBI have guidelines to deny NOC for permit of the vehicle. If the complainant was a chronic defaulter, the opp.party could have taken coercive steps against the complainant. According to opp.party, they had assured the complainant many times that NOC will be issued on payment of at least 50,000/- But opp.party could not produce any piece of evidence to show their assurance. After the order of CDRC., Thiruvananthapuram, they had issued NOC after receiving Rs.50,000/-. According to the opp.party the loan account was a non performing bad account. That argument of the opp.party also cannot be accepted because for that also there is no evidence, Ext.P3 reveals that the loan amount was not a non-performing bad account. Complainant produced Ext.P11 series to show that the said vehicle had undergone repairs due to the delay in issuing NOC. But those Ext. P11 series were not proved by the complainant be examining the persons who issued those documents.
On considering the entire evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opp.party.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- [one lakh] as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opp.parties. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order. Failing which the compensation amount will carry 9% interest
Dated this the 20th day of March, 2012.
I N D E X
List of witnesses for the complainant
PW.1. – Rajan.P.L.
PW.2. - Jayan
List of documents for the complainant
P1. – Power of Attorney
P2. – Complaint dated 31..12..2002
P3. – Statement of opp.party
P4. – Letter dated 24..2..2005
P5. – Application dated 10..5..2006
P6. – Letter dated 20..12..2006
P7. – Letter dated 12.2.2006P8. –
P8. - Letter dated 1..2..2007
P9. – Tax receipt
P10. – receipt
P11. series – Bills
List of witnesses for the opp.parties
DW.1. – K. Symon
List of documents for the opp.parties
D1. – Sanction letter
D2. - dt. 11.12..2000
D2. – Agreement
D3. – Copy of NOC
D4. – Letter dated 31..1..2008
D5. – Statement of account
