The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Regional Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Worli, Mumbai, O.P No.2 is the Zonal Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar and the O.P No.3 is the Branch Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Sahadevkhunta, Balasore. 

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant had purchased one Max Pick up, being financed by O.P No.3 for Rs.3.00 Lakhs at fixed rate of interest 4.5% per annum to be repaid within 3 years in 34 installments vide agreement No.B-4436 bearing Registration Number of the said vehicle is OR-01Q-2043. The Complainant deposited Rs.79,829/- towards margin money, Rs.1,001/- towards documentation, Rs.3,000/- towards processing fee, Rs.3,000/- towards other charges including first installment of Rs.11,390/-, thus in toto Rs.98,220/-. Accordingly, the Complainant has repaid Rs.3,40,500/- with the O.Ps as per agreement and has received the cash receipts from the O.Ps. And lastly, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.28,065/- on 03.07.2007 vide Receipt No.80486375 as per advice of the O.P No.3 for clearance of all his dues with the O.Ps. But, the O.Ps neither issued no dues certificate nor returned the blank cheques to the Complainant though the Complainant has already paid the entire dues. Thus, the Complainant has served legal notices through his Advocate to the O.Ps on 28.08.2011 and on 03.11.2015, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. The Legal notices dt.03.11.2015 was delivered to the O.Ps on 04.11.2015, 05.11.2015 and 10.11.2015 respectively, copy of which is annexed in the case record. Hence, the Complainant has prayed for issuance of no dues certificate and return of all documents along with compensation towards mental agony to the Complainant.

                    2. Written version filed by the O.Ps through their Advocate, where they have denied about maintainability, cause of action as well as about Consumer as per provision of C.P Act. Moreover the O.Ps have also submitted that the O.Ps had sanctioned a loan for Rs.3.00 Lakhs to the Complainant as per his request for purchase of a vehicle vide loan agreement No.B0041136 dt.06.09.2004 and agreement value of Rs.3,40,500/- to be repaid by the Complainant in 34 periodical installments w.e.f 06.09.2004 till 06.06.2007 and each installment to be repaid within 6th day of every month. But failure for such repayment, the Complainant is liable to pay Additional Finance Charge (AFC) @ 3% per month for the outstanding amount remained beyond due date and payable till the actual date of realization. Though the Complainant has repaid all his loan dues within 06.06.2007, but the periodical installments were not paid within the stipulated due date as per loan agreement, resulting a sum of Rs.25,231/- towards late payment charges/ additional financial charges and Rs.1,025/- towards additional interest charges is accrued, in total  Rs.26,256/-. The Complainant had defaulted in making such payment for which the O.Ps could not issue NOC to him. The Complainant has also suppressed the fact that he has failed to pay the installments within the due date, stipulated in the loan agreement, for which he is liable to pay the same amounting Rs.26,256/-. Moreover, the O.P No.3 has never advised the Complainant to deposit Rs.28,065/- for clearance of all dues. Hence, O.Ps have prayed for dismissal of this case with cost. But the O.Ps did not take part at the time of hearing and remained absent.        

                    3. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer under the provision of Consumer Protection Act.

(ii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable in eye of Law.

(iii) Whether there is a cause of action to file this case.

(iv) Whether the Complainant has cleared all his dues in respect of loan availed from the O.Ps.

(v) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?  

                    4. In view of the above disputes, both the Parties have filed documents in support of their claim. Perused the same. It is undisputed fact that the O.P No.3 has financed on the basis of hypothecation agreement and provided a sum of 3 Lakhs loan to the Complainant basing which he has purchased an alleged Max Pick up vehicle. After availing loan, according to the Complainant, he has already repaid the required amount of Rs.3,40,500/- both towards Principal & interest as agreed upon. But, in spite of several request, the O.Ps are not issuing No dues Certificate to the Complainant. The Complainant has issued two Legal notices to the O.Ps disclosing this fact, out of which one legal notice dt.03.11.2015 filed by the Complainant is available in the case record & the rest one has not been filed for the reason best known to him. On the other hand, according to the O.Ps, the Complainant is very irregular in repayment of loan, the late payment charges/ additional financial charges of Rs.25,231/- & additional interest charge of Rs.1,025/- has been accrued and the Complainant is in default of payment of such amount of Rs.26,256/-, for which No due Certificate has not been issued by the O.Ps. The Advocate for Complainant in support of his argument has relied upon the authority reported in 2012 (3) CPR-314 (N.C) in the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited Vrs. Jumma Khan, where in direction has been given by the Hon’ble National Commission for issuance of No dues Certificate. But the fact of that case is not similar to the present case in hand. In that case full amount has been paid. Similarly the Complainant has relied upon another authority reported in 2006 (Supp-II) OLR-871 in the case of the Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vrs. Birendra Kumar Behera & others in respect of issuance of Clearance Certificate to the Petitioner. Similarly, the Adv. for O.Ps has relied upon authority reported in III (2006) CPJ-247 (N.C) in the case of Ram Deshlahara Vrs. Magma Leasing Ltd., where in it is held that under a hire-purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Petitioner is, thus, not a Consumer. The Hon’ble State C.D.R Commission, Odisha, Cuttack in Consumer Case No.43/2010 in the case of Sushanta Kumar Acharya Vrs. Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. held that while Finance Company is claiming more regarding issue of N.O.C and Complainant is stating that he is to pay the Lesser amount, this being purely accounts matter between the Parties, so the Consumer Forum or the State Commission can’t decide this case. In the instant case, there is dispute between the Parties regarding financial payment as mentioned earlier.

                    5. So, in the circumstances, on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and on the basis of principle laid down by above authorities as discussed, now this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainant is not a Consumer under provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and this Consumer case is not maintainable, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in this Forum and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-         

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 24th day of May, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.