D.o.F:27/09/2013

D.o.O:31/01/2015

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO.221/13

                  Dated this, the 31^st      day of  January 2015

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI           : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G               : MEMBER

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER

Abdul Muneer, S/o Abbas,

R/at Muneer Manzil, Po.Alampady,                       :  Complainant

Santhosh Nagar, Kasaragod.

1.The Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd.

Bye Pass, North End,Edapally,Ernakulam.    : Opposite parties

2.The Manager, Indus Ind Bank Ltd,

City Building,Kasaragod.

     (Adv.Sreejith.K)                                  

                                    ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI           : PRESIDENT

  The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows:

  That the complainant  availed a loan for  his Honda Activa Scooter from Ist opposite party in the year 2007 and he has been remitting the instalments regularly.  The complainant had paid Rs.10500/- on 17/12/2009 as the last remittance and cleared the entire liability in respect of that loan.  At the time of availing loan the subject  vehicle is hypothecated to Ist opposite party and kept the RC and Key with  their custody and the complainant has been remitting the loan amount through 2^nd opposite party.  Eventhough the entire liability is cleared, the  opposite parties were so far not handed over the original RC, 2^nd  key, hypothecation cancellation letter, etc to the complainant.  The complainant approached the opposite parties several  times for getting  the documents but opposite parties were not  returned the  vehicular documents in  one pretext or the other.  At last on 2/8/2013 the opposite parties have refused to return the documents when the complainant contacted  opposite parties 1& 2 and claimed some more  amount with respect to the  vehicle loan.  Complainant submits that complainant  is not liable to remit any amount towards the loan.  Hence the complaint  is filed for necessary relief.

    Opposite parties filed version  and denied all the allegations made by the complainant against opposite parties.  In the version the  opposite parties admitted  the  loan availed b y the complainant from opposite parties and also admitted the payment made by the complainant on 17/12/09 for an amount of Rs.10500/-. According to opposite parties the amount of Rs.10500/- is not cleared the entire liability  and Rs.1200/- is the balance due to the opposite parties and the opposite parties also denied that the original RC is with the opposite party.  It is further submitted that the opposite parties informed the complainant that they will provide no objection certificate after remitting the balance amount of Rs.1200/- and the complainant has not taken any initiative to settle the matter.  On 27/8/13 the opposite party called the complainant to the office and made a settlement and as per settlement the complainant  has paid the amount of Rs.300/- on 27/8/13 as per receipt No.6540413J 29p0001 and the same is sent to the Chennai office and thereafter Chennai office sent the No Objection certificate and the same was informed to the complainant and the complainant has not obtained the no objection certificate and duplicate key and thereafter on 26/9/13 the opposite party sent a registered letter to the complainant to collect the no objection certificate and duplicate key but the complainant failed to  collect the same.  There is no deficiency in service in their part.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

   On going through the entire facts on record the following issues raised for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties
2. If so what is the relief as costs and compensation?

          The evidence in this case consists of the evidence of PW1 the complainant and Exts.A1 to A6 and DW1 and Ext.B1 and B2 documents.

4.    Heard both sides and documents perused.

  Here the specific case of the complainant is that he has closed his loan account with opposite parties long back and opposite parties refused to return the original RC and duplicate key to the complainant.  In order to substantiate  his contentions he has produced Ext.A5 document.  Ext.A5 is the document issued by opposite parties showing  the payment of Rs.10500/-  made by the complainant.  The receipt is dtd.17/12/09 and in Ext.A5 there is an  entry SOH CLOSED SOH indicates statement of Hire .  That means statement of hire is closed.  According to complainant SHO  closed means entire loan  amount closed and no further balance.  According to opposite parties  after Ext.A5 there is a balance of Rs.1200/- and the complainant fails to pay that amount and that  is  why they were not  returned the documents.  But on perusal of  the statement of account produced by the opposite party dt.16/2/14 there is no amount of Rs.1200/  as balance on 17/12/09.  The balance shown on that  day was Rs.570/-.  Then the  next entry seen in  the above mentioned statement of account is on 29/8/13 and on that day the balance is shown as Rs.1440/- and  under the instalments had the particulars shown as system journal and there are 3 entries in that day and at last a cash receipt of Rs.300/- is shown.  The above said statement itself shows that there was no balance amount of Rs.1200/- as on 17/12/09.  That means the entries in the statements produced by the Ist opposite parties are not tallying  with the  amount stated in the version.  On 17/12/09 balance may be more than Rs.10500/- and after waiving some interest the parties may be settled the matter.  Anyway the amount paid on 17/12/09 is for the final settlement of the claim and the documentary evidence is very clear to prove the case of the complainant.  Moreover in the version the opposite party specifically stated that the original RC is not with them and it is given  by the RTO authorities   directly to the complainant.  But while cross examining  DW1 he admits that the original RC is with their custody and moreover Ext.B2 filed along with version clearly  shows that original  RC is  with the custody of the opposite parties.  On going through the entire facts on record and  on perusal of the documents we are not in a position to believe that Ext.B1 is a true and genuine document.  This document is after filing of the complaint.  If the complainant is paid the amount and settled the matter, what is prevented him from withdrawing the complaint?  Moreover whether  a big finance company like opposite party proceeded against a loanee over a  period of about 5 years for getting an amount of Rs.300/-.  Whether this can be believable.  Here there is  latches or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  on the side of opposite parties.  The opposite party failed to provide proper service to its customers that means after receiving the entire amount of loan  the opposite parties failed to return back the original RC, No objection certificate or duplicate key to the complainant.  Therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

     Therefore the complaint is allowed  directing the opposite parties to return the original RC of  KL 14G 6644, second key and also issue hypothecation  cancellation letter to complainant and further directed  to pay a compensation of Rs.25000/- with a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  If the opposite parties failed to comply with the order within the  prescribed time  on application by the complainant. The RTO is directed to cancel the hypothecation and  to issue duplicate RC to the complainant.

Exts:

A1-copy of lawyer notice

A2-&A3- postal receipts

A4- copy of RC

A5- cash receipt of OP

B1- letter from Ops to PW1

B2- statement of account

PW1-Abdul Muneer-complainant

DW1-Santhosh Kumar.C.N- manager of OP

MEMBER                                         MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

eva