F.A.NO.294/2006

(Against order in C.C.No.84/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Nagercoil)

DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009

1. The General Manager

Dove Finance Ltd.,

17-A, Baliah Avenue

Luz Church Road, Mylapore

Chennai – 600 004

2. The Manager

Dove Finance Ltd.,

11/4-148-A3, East Side

Retty Complex, Asambu Road

Vadasery, Nagercoil Appellants / Opposite Parties
Vs.

D. Maria John

Son of Daniel

Velliyavillai

Thakkalivilai

Palappalaum

Kanyakumari District Respondent / Complainant
The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants /opposite parties praying for a direction to the opposite parties to issue NOC, alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh. The District Forum allowed the complaint giving direction to the opposite parties to return 5 blank cheques alongwith NOC and Rs.25000/- as compensation . Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.03.03.2006 in CC No.84/2005.

This appeal petition is coming on before us for hearing finally on 6.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on eitherside, this commission made the following order.

Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite parties : M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Mr.M. Devaraj, Advocate

M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT

1. The appellants are the opposite parties before the District Forum in C.C.No.84/2005.



2. The respondent herein, as complainant, had purchased a Hero Honda Splendor, Motorcycle, after obtaining financial assistance from the opposite parties/ appellants, by executing Hire Purchase Agreement on 7.8.2001. Out of the total cost of the bike of Rs.43,356/-, the loan was obtained only to the extent of Rs.20000/-, and the balance was paid by the complainant. As per the hypothecation agreement, the complainant has to pay a total sum of Rs.27,800/- in equal monthly instalments, for 24 months @ Rs.1108/-, commencing from 7.8.2001.



3. The complainant has paid so far a total sum of Rs.29,250/-, though he is liable to pay only a sum of Rs.27,800/-. Despite the fact that the entire loan amount was discharged, the opposite party has retained the bank cheques, given as security and also failed to issue No objection Certificate, though they returned the original RC book. The non-return of the bank cheques, and non-issue of No objection Certificate, though entire amount has been discharged, would amount to deficiency in service, for which the opposite party should be held responsible, since they failed to comply the demands, despite request and notice. Thus a claim came to be filed for the direction, to return five signed bank cheques, and issue of No objection certificate, in respect of motor cycle bearing No.TN 74 Y 6081, and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.



4. The opposite parties / appellants, opposed the claim interalia contending that still there is balance of Rs.3574/-, including late fee and penal interest, that without paying the amount, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, and that the consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, thereby praying for the dismissal of the claim.



5. The District Forum, Nagercoil, marking Ex.A1 to A24 and B1 to B6, not only evaluated the pleadings, but also the above said documents, coupled with question of law, which brought to surface that the consumer forum has jurisdiction, that the opposite parties having collected more amount, than the agreed amount under hypothecation agreement, are not entitled to retain the blank cheques, and the failure on their part to issue No objection Certificate, would amounts to deficiency in service. Thus concluding, as per the order dt.3.3.2006, a direction came to be issued to return 5 signed blank cheques, as well to issue No objection certificate, with a direction to pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation, which is under challenge.



6. Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as the respondents, perused the written submission in addition to the documents filed by them as well as the order of the lower forum.



7. The undisputed facts in this case are that the complainant/ respondent having obtained financial assistance from the opposite party (Ex.B1 and B2), had purchased a motorcycle bearing Regn. No.TN-07 Y 6081, for a sum of Rs.43,356/-, that out of the said amount, the loan assistance obtained by the complainant from the opposite parties is only Rs.20000/- / principle, that under the hypothecation agreement, he had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.27,800/- including interest and other charges, by 24 monthly instalments, commencing from 7.8.2001 @ Rs.1108/- per month. It is the specific case of the complainant that so far, that is till the date of filing of the complaint, he had paid a sum of Rs.29000/-, that is, he has paid excess amount than he agreed to pay to the opposite parties, under the hypothecation agreement. As recorded by the District Forum, it is also evidenced by Ex.A2 to A13, which are not challenged before us, the complainant has paid the above said amount, and therefore it should be held that he has paid the entire loan amount, including interest. Under the stated circumstances, it is the duty of the opposite parties to return the signed blank cheques, as well as to issue No objection Certificate, to cancel the hypothecation endorsement made in the RC book, pursuant to the sanctioning of the loan. In this case, admittedly they have failed to do so and therefore, the case came to be filed rightly, in which we are unable to find any error or illegality. The submissions of the otherside that still there is a balance, such as penal interest for delayed payment etc., are not acceptable to us, since it is not shown by the opposite parties, there were delayed payments or under the agreement the complainant had agreed to pay additional interest, offending the ordinary common law. After hearing the arguments at one point of time, when the counsel for the appellant was directed to make statement, whether they are willing to return the blank cheques, as well as to issue No objection Certificate, there was no response, thereby showing the indifferent attitude of the appellant that they are not amenable to law. By going through the order of the District Forum, and after hearing the arguments of the otherside also, we are unable to find any defect or illegality in the order of the District Forum, in directing the opposite parties to return the blank cheques, as well as to issue No objection Certificate, hence those findings are to be confirmed.



8. As far as the compensation is concerned, the grant of Rs.25000/-, appears to be on the higher side, since this amount exceeds even the loan amount. Admittedly, the RC book was returned, and there would not have been any difficulty for the complainant to use the vehicle also. By the non-return of the blank cheques, as well as by the non-issuance of the No objection certificate, there would not have been any monetary loss an if at all, there should have been some mental agony, in the sense, having paid the entire loan amount, unable to get the documents, as required. In this way to compensate the sufferings, we feel granting of compensation of Rs.5000/- would suffice, and in this view, we are inclined to reduce the compensation from Rs.25000/- to Rs.5000/-.



9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, reducing the compensation amount from Rs.25000/- to Rs.5000/-, confirming the other directions of the order of the District Forum. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.