The titled complainant has filed the present complaint on behalf of her deceased son Neeraj Sharma (being his mother and legal heir) against the titled opposite parties (the OP1 Financier & the OP2 Vendor) at non-issuance of 'No Dues Certificate & Hypothecation-Cancellation on RTA Form' upon total-liquidation of the related Car Loan through regular repayments (by the deceased's father) causing them much physical harassment, mental agony and financial loss in their endeavor to dispose off the said Car.

2.       The Complainant's deceased son Neeraj Sharma during his life-time had purchased (at Gurdaspur) the Volkswagen Make Skoda Model Rapid Car on 30.01.2014 from the OP2 Vendor who had arranged its finance from the OP1 Financier/Manufacturer) @ Rs.17,167/- per month EMI (Equated Monthly Installments) for 36 months. As worst-luck would have it, Neeraj Sharma expired on 02.03.2015 and thereafter his father Kuldeep Sharma has been  regularly depositing the repayments in the OP1 's ICICI Bank a/c # 641405050621 and thus liquidating the car-loan on 15.12.2016 and since then has been requesting the OP1 as well as the OP2 for issuance of the requisite No Dues Certificate & Hypothecation Cancellation RTA Form to facilitate an expeditious disposal of the Car. As the OP had been deferring the requested documents the complainant got the legal notice served upon them and having no response has filed the present complaint seeking the above relief(s).    

3.       The complainant has further addressed the OP 's said act as deficiency in service cum unfair trade practices on their part has also stated that it has adversely affected their credibility in the market causing them much humiliation, harassment and agony besides the financial loss for none of their fault and has since filed the instant/present complaint along with her affidavits (Ex.CW1/A) and the exhibited documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C12) seeking issuance of the NDC + Hypothecation Cancellation RTA Form besides Rs.75,000/- as compensation with interest with effect from the date of loan-liquidation till realization and an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost of the present litigation, all in the interest of justice.      

4.       The OP No.1 Financiers upon summoning, appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement comprising of the preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: The present complaint is not maintainable in the present form as the complainant has not been their consumer and no cause of action had ever arisen in her favor and the complained-of car-loan has been bound by the courts at Mumbai and thus the commission lacks the necessary adjudicatory jurisdiction to put the same on trial. On merits, the OP1 Financier has addressed the paras 1 to 7 as matter of records and have thus denied these. Further, the OP Bank has pleaded in reply to the contents of para 8 that the adjudicatory jurisdiction of the commission has been ousted by virtue of the hypothecation agreement that all disputes will fall under the jurisdiction of Mumbai judicature. Lastly, the OP1 has sought dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs. In support of their defense the OP1 has filed the affidavit (Ex.OP1/A) by their authorized representative Jasmeet Singh along with copy (Ex.OP1/1) of the hypothecation agreement and copy (Ex.OP1/2) of the Power of Attorney and closed the evidence.             

5.       The OP2 Vendor has preferred to stay absent from the present proceedings in spite of the commission's notice/summons giving rise to by the time universally acceptable judicial presumption that he had no cogent defense to prosecute.

6.       We also observe that the present litigants have not filed their mandatory written arguments in spite of having availed of an ample number of adjournments and have finally requested for adjudication on the strength of their written versions/reply and oral-arguments taken, together.            

7.       We have examined the available documents/evidence as available on records of the present proceedings so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document along with the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the allegations/arguments as put forth by learned counsels for their respective sides.       

8.       We have scrutinized the present complaint to examine the extant issues liable/probable to arise/prompt during the related proceedings and find these quite normal and fit for usual resolve through the herein prescribed summary procedure and thus we over-rule the OP1's prime objections of trivial legal value and continue with the requisite furtherance. We observe that all the OP1 Financier's pleadings/objections fail at the very face of the herein produced documents as the related Car Loan stands liquidated and they have not pleaded any good reason of with-holding the issuance of the requisite documents except the one most feeble and unacceptable that the commission lacks the competent jurisdiction on account of the hypothecation agreement that binds the parties to the courts under the Mumbai Judicature. The OP1 financiers need to relearn/refresh the law that the parties are free to bow/surrender to the jurisdiction of a court following the provisions of the C.P.C. but the jurisdiction of the one statutory court cannot be ousted by virtue of agreements as these shall be voidable at the instance of any of the executing parties.                           

9.       On the other hand, the complainant has successfully proved her pleadings as well as all her allegations by virtue of the cogently relevant documents, produced in evidence and as such rightfully deserves the herein sought reliefs with moderation, of course. We find that the OP Bank has exhibited an employ of unfair trade practices in its functioning cum unscrupulous exploitation of the consumer/complainant and that do prove 'deficiency in service' in full display, on their part.

10.      In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the herein OP1  Financier can neither escape nor wriggle out of its liability for the acts/omissions of its officials who have been instrumental in infringing the complainant's consumer rights and thus we partly allow this complaint and ORDER the OP1 Financier to issue the No Dues Certificate cum RTA Hypothecation Cancellation Form, in right order, to the complainant besides paying him Rs.20,000/- as compensation with interest @ 6% P. A. with effect from the date of the loan-liquidation till realization along with a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation and for having caused/inflicted  harassment, mental agony and financial-loss within 45 days of receipt of certified copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amounts shall attract an additional interest @ 3% PA from the date of filing of the complaint till paid, in full.        

11.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

12.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.                                                

                                                          (Naveen Puri)

                                                                President.

ANNOUNCED:                                (R.S.Sukhija)

DEC. 14, 2022.                                           Member.

YP.