O R D E R.

By Smt. Beena. M,  Member:-

This is a complaint preferred under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant is the registered owner of the Motor Cab (Taxi) bearing Registration No.KL-12-G-2009. The Complainant had purchased the vehicle with financial assistance of the Opposite Party. The total loan amount availed was Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakh only) from the Opposite Parties and had entered into a loan agreement with the first Opposite Party  dated 15/02/2012. The Opposite Party had issued a payment chart directing the Complainant to pay the loan amount with interest of Rs. 1,33,200/- by 48 equal monthly installments. The total repayable amount was Rs.5,33,200/- on or before 14/02/2016. The Complainant had paid the entire loan amount with interest on various dates without making any default. The Complainant closed the loan account on 11/01/2016, one month prior to the closing date of loan, for getting clearance certificate immediately. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties, several times, to get a loan clearance certificate. The Opposite Party has not given a loan clearance certificate and they committed serious service deficiency and latches. The Complainant had suffered huge loss and difficulties. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint seeking direction to issue the loan clearance certificate and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss and damages and also the cost of the Complaint.

 3. After receiving the Complaint, summons was issued to the Opposite Parties from the Commission and the Opposite Parties appeared and filed version. The Opposite Parties challenged the maintainability of the Complaint, stating that the Complainant plying the vehicle as a taxi, so the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Act. The Opposite Parties admitted the loan transaction with the Complainant as stated in the Complaint. The Opposite Parties denied the statement that the Complainant had repaid the entire loan amount along with interest without any default and closed the loan on 11.01.2016. According to them, the said loan is still pending due by the Complainant. It is stated that, Complainant has not paid installments regularly on the dates already had fixed.  As the vehicle loan is still pending, which attracted additional financial charges, as agreed upon by the Complainant, as per the agreement. The Complainant is legally liable to repay the arrears of vehicle loan as per the stipulations in the contract entered into between the Complainant and the First Opposite Party. It is further stated that as the vehicle loan is still pending, the Opposite Parties are unable to issue loan clearance certificate. So the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint.   

4.  The points for consideration are:-

     1. Whether the Opposite Parties have committed any deficiency in

         service?

               2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?

5.  Point No. 1 and 2 :-  Both these points are considered together for the sake of convenience.

          6. In order to prove the Complainant’s case, the Complainant had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and three documents were produced. The documents produced by the Complainant were marked as Ext. A1 to A3.  Ext. A1 is the copy of the Registration Certificate of the vehicle No. KL 12 – G 2009 issued in the name of Complainant. Ext.A2 is the repayment chart, and Ext. A3 is the account statement. On the side of Opposite Parties, one Sumesh M.G, Customer Manager appeared with proof affidavit and was examined as OPW1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext. B1 to B3. 

 7. The Opposite Parties’ preliminary contention is that the Complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer as defined in  the Act, because the Complainant is running the vehicle as taxi. According to the Complainant he is plying the vehicle as taxi to earn his livelihood. In the explanation under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, it is stated that commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self employment will also come under the definition of consumer. So in our view Complainant is a consumer and this Complaint is maintainable before this Commission. According to the Complainant  the entire loan amount with interest has been paid one month before the stipulated last date of repayment as per the chart issued by the Opposite Party and closed the loan account.  On the other hand, according to the Opposite Party, the Complainant has not closed the loan account and still the amount is outstanding.  On verification of Ext. A3 it is seen that the Complainant had paid a total of Rs.5,33,200/-, but all the installments are not paid on exact dates. Ext. B3 shows that the Complainant was irregular in repayment of loan, and so the Complainant is liable to pay additional interest as shown in repayment statement, for delay in regular payments on time. As per the terms of the agreement, the Complainant was supposed to pay the EMI before 15^th of every month, but it is seen that many times the Complainant had defaulted by not paying on the exact dates. As per the terms of the agreement the Complainant is liable to pay additional interest for late payment and the Opposite Parties have right to charge the same.  The argument of the Complainant that the loan account has been closed before the last date of the closing of the loan shall not stand though the Complainant has paid the entire installment amount as he has not paid the additional amount due.  Ext. B2 agreement clearly shows that the terms and conditions agreed between the parties.

         8. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that at the time of filing the Complaint, the Complainant had dues and hence the Opposite Party is not liable to give the clearance certificate without clearing the dues. In the above discussion, it is seen that there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.  So the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for.   

In the result, the Complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by

me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of  October      2022.

Date of filing :13.09.2018.

                                                          PRESIDENT :  Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER    :  Sd/-

                                                          MEMBER    :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.           Shabeer. V.A                  Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Sumesh. M.G.                Private Job.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.       Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2.       Copy of Repayment chart.

A3.       Copy  of Statement of Account.         dt:27.02.2020.   

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1.      Whomsoever it may concern.           dt:16.04.2021.

B2.      Loan Agreement.                             dt:15.02.2012.

B3.      Copy of Repayment Summary.   

                                                                                               PRESIDENT :   Sd/-      

                                                                             MEMBER     :   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER     :   Sd/-