FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI ASHOKE KUMAR GANGULY, MEMBER
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Mr. Jayanta Mondal purchased one vehicle from Tata Motors Show Room VIP Road, Kolkata on 20.07.2010 by availing loan from the OP. The registration No. of the vehicle is WB-26K6383. The loan was however repaid well within the stipulated period and the complainant after obtaining NOC sold out the said vehicle. For availing this loan the complainant made Mr. Murad Gazi of village Koch Pukur, North 24 Pgs as guarantor. Thereafter, the complainant purchased another vehicle having registration No.WB 26S 6095 taking loan from the OP Bank and that loan was fully repaid in 2017. The complainant thereafter approached the OP Bank for NOC of the vehicle but the OP refused to issue NOC on the ground that there is a case pending before the Hon’ble High Court against the said guarantor Mr. Murad Gazi. Thereafter, the complainant obtained a copy of order dated 26.02.2016 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in EC case No. 364 of 2015 with a direction that the matter will appear after 3 weeks or examination of Jdr and in the said case the complainant is made respondent No. 2 without any OF his fault and without any allegation him. The said case on the next date of hearing i.e. on 15.07.2016 was dismissed for default and no steps was taken by the bank for its restoration. The complainant thereafter informed the OP bank in writing about the fate of the case and prayed for NOC. The said letter was received by the OP on 06.06.2018. In spite of that the OP bank did not issue the required NOC and went on harassing the complainant. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has approached the commission for justice seeking relief as detailed in the complaint petition.
The OP bank has contested the case by filing their WV contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable both in law and in facts. A loan of Rs. 6,80,000/- was sanctioned in favour of the complainant vide agreement dated 19.08.2013 for purchasing one Tata Sumo Gold Vehicle. It is also mentioned incidentally that the complainant is a guarantor for a loan availed by one Mr. Murad Gazi who is a chronic defaulter and the complainant will also liable to pay the defaulted amount as per loan agreement. For recovery of that loan the OP initiated arbitration proceedings and award was passed on 02.03.2012 far before the initiation of the complaint case. So, the OPs are not entitled to give NOC in respect of any contract. Moreover, the OPs are not at all liable to give NOC if there is any due in any account. It is also necessary to mention that the said award is also under execution which is pending before the Hon’ble High Court, Kolkata. So the OPs have no deficiency in service.
Points for Determination
In the light of the above pleadings, the following points necessarily have come up for determination.
1) Whether the OPs are deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?
2) Whether the OPs have indulged in unfair trade practice?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Point Nos. 1 to 3-
All the points are taken up together for sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant Mr.Jayanta Mondal was sanctioned a vehicle loan of Rs.6,80,000/- by the OP Bank vide loan agreement dated 19.08.2013 for purchasing a vehicle having Registration. No. WB 26S 6095 . The loan is scheduled to be repaid by 48 installments which as per submission is fully repaid There is no denial of facts on the part of the OP in respect of repayment of the loan availed by the complainant. So the admitted fact is that the complainant has repaid the loan in full. Now the controversy is that the OP is not issuing the NOC in respect of the said loan for the reason that the loan in which the complainant stood as guarantor is under default. From the submissions made by the parties it is understood that the complainant has been made a guarantor against a loan availed by one Mr.Murad Gazi. That loan account of Murad Gazi is under default for which the complainant as per submission of the OP is liable to repay that loan. It is our observation that since the loan wherein the complainant has been made as a guarantor is under default, the NOC for the loan availed by the complainant will not be issued inspite of the fact that the loan stands repaid in full. The OP has not furnished any single document from which it could be established that NOC is barred by any provision of law. The stand taken by the OP is not justified. It is absolutely whimsical and suffer from the latches of one sidedness. In view of the facts stated above we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to make out the case against the OPs and accordingly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP have been established
In the result, the consumer complaint succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs with the following directions.
- The OPs are directed to issue the NOC to the complainant in respect of the subject loan immediately.
- The OPs are further directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant as compensation towards harassment and mental agony.
- The OPs are also directed to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
The above order is to be complied by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of this order. In default, the complainant will be at liberty to put the order into execution.
Copy of the judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost as per the C.P. Act and Judgment be uploaded in the website of the Commission for perusal of the parties.
