By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an order directing the Opposite Party No.1 to issue no objection certificate over to vehicle KL 12A 8506 No. JCB or in case the 1^st Opposite Party is not issuing NOC, direct the 2^nd Opposite Party to cancel the loan endorsement in the R.C of the above vehicle and to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. The case of the complaint in brief as follows:- The Complainant purchased a JCB and a vehicle loan is availed from 1^st Opposite Party. The vehicle is registered at Regional Transport office Wayanad wide registration No.KL 12A 8506 and the loan is endorsed in the Registration Certificate. The Complainant thereafter repaid the entire loan amount within the specified time as per chart given by the 1^st Opposite Party. After remitting the entire loan amount, the Complainant demanded NOC from the 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant directly approached the office of 1^st Opposite Party at Ernakulam but found that office is not now functioning there. According to the Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party is bound to issue NOC on completion of loan repayment. The 1^st Opposite Party did not acted upon and not issued NOC so there is deficiency of service on their part.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite parties and 2^nd Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. 1^st Opposite Party's notice was returned stating that the whereabouts of 1^st Opposite Party is not known. The Complainant then produced paper publication against 1^st Opposite Party, and the 1^st Opposite Party is set exparte on 29.10.2013.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version stating that 2^nd Opposite party did not receive any application for cancellation of loan endorsement from the complainant. On receipt of such application, the 2^nd Opposite Party is ready to cancell the endorsement. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite Party. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and document which is marked as Ext.A1. The Complainant is examined as PW1. On going through the complaint proof affidavit, and document of Complainant and the version of 2^nd Opposite Party the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. 1. 1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

      2. What order as to cost and compensation?

5. Point No.1:- On going through the complaint and Ext.A1 document it is evident that the complainant had availed vehicle loan from 1^st Opposite Party and the same is endorsed in R.C book. The Complainant filed affidavit stating that he had remitted the entire loan amount to the 1^st Opposite party within the specified time. The Complainant did not produce any document to prove that he had remitted the entire loan amount, since the Complainant had send all such instalment payment receipts and demand draft copies to the 1^st Opposite Party for getting NOC. No such documents are there now with him but the Complainant filed affidavit to that effect. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version stating that they did not receive any application for cancellation of loan endorsement in the R.C. That is admitted by the Complainant in the box. So there is no deficiency of service from the part of 2^nd Opposite Parties. Here the 1^st Opposite Party's whereabouts are not known and after paper publication 1^st Opposite party is set exparte. It is up to the 1^st Opposite Party to deny the contentions of complaint. When there is no such denial or contrary contention from the side of 1^st Opposite Party, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the Complainant. The Complainant is entitled to get the cancellation of loan endorsement in the Registration Certificate. On remittance of the entire loan amount, the 1^st Opposite party is oblied to issue the NOC with respect to the vehicle. Here that is not done by the 1^st Opposite Party. So the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite Party in dealing with the matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.1:- Since point No.1 is found infavour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation.

In the result, 1^st Opposite Party is directed to issue NOC for the vehicle KL 12A 8506 JCB within 30 days of the receipt of this order together with a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only and cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant. If the 1^st Opposite Party is not issuing NOC in the specified time, 2^nd opposite Party is directed to cancel the endorsement of hire purchase over the above vehicle on receipt of such application from the Complainant.

Dictated to the C.A transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8^th day of April 2014.

Date of filing: 25.05.2013.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. T.T. Sanny Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of R.C. Book.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.