IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF AUGUST 2022
Present: - Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.269/2021
Sreejith,
S/o Sreedharanpillai,
Vishnu Bhavanam,
Kurungappalli muri
Vavvakkavu P.O.,
Karunagappally. : Complainant
(By Adv.K.V.Ajaikumar Vazhappally)
V/S
Branch Manager,
Magma Fincorp Ltd.,
Kollam Branch Office,
1st Floor,Visweswara Bhavan,
Kollam 691008. : Opposite party
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
Complainant had availed financial assistance from the opposite party for purchasing Maruti car bearing No. KL 29 B 7061 for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as per the proposal No.PG/0155/c/12/000170. The complainant as per the terms of the agreement paid the instalments. While so the opposite party intimated the complainant if a lump sum payment of Rs.30,000/- is effected the loan account can be closed. Immediately the complainant by availing the amount from his friends remitted the amount to the opposite party on 24.05.2018 as per the DD. No.776839. On the same day itself he also paid Rs.550/- for getting No Objection Certificate required for removing the hypothecation endorsed in the registration certificate. The complainant had approached the opposite party and
demanded to issue the No Objection Certificate but the opposite party refused to do so. After repeated requests and demands the opposite party had intimated the complainant as per the system entries of the loan is still operative. Thus they need two months time for completing the procedure and assured that they will furnish the No Objection Certificate and accompanying records through posts in the address of the complainant. But after the expiry of two months the opposite party was reluctant to issue the No Objection Certificate and the records while the complainant enquired the matter before the opposite party office by claiming that an endorsement is found in the system as “ payment pending ”. Thereafter a person deputed by the opposite party for collecting the existing liabilities of the opposite party had contacted the complainant through telephone and told the complainant that complainant has a huge liability owing to the opposite party if the complainant fails to repay the amount they will definitely repossess the vehicle forcibly without any notice.. The complainant thus contacted the opposite party at that time they informed him that the Section Clerk of the opposite party office had committed a mistake as mistakenly noted the proposal No. of the finance taken bearing No.PG/0119/c/11/000363 in the place of proposal No.of the complainant PG/0155/C/12/000170 and the opposite party assured the complainant that they will make rectifications of the mistake very soon and will issue the No Objection Certificate without any failure. Thereafter also no response from the part of the opposite party in the said circumstances the complainant approached the SHO, Karunagappally and preferred a complaint and also filed a pre litigation petition before the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Karunagappally but the opposite party does not attend the said proceedings. The above act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant had sustained huge monitory loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint.
Though notice was issued from the Forum/Commission the opposite party failed to appear before the commission nor made any representation hence opposite party set exparte. The complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A7 documents. Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the records.
Ext.A1 is the loan customer proposal letter issued along with agreement of the financial assistance dated 21.01.2014. Ext.A2 is the receipt issued from the opposite party for Rs.30,000/- in proposal No.PG/0119/C/11/000363. Ext.A3 is receipt of Rs.550/- dated 19.03.2019 paid to the opposite party for issuing No Objection Certificate. Ext.A4 is the copy of FD receipt issued from the Canara Bank. Ext.A5 is the Advocate notice. Ext.A6 is the PLP No.2328 petition filed before the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Karunagappally. Ext.A7 is the complaint filed before the Karunagappally Police Station.
The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Exts.A1 to A7 documents would establish that the complainant had availed a financial assistance from opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- as per proposal No.PG/0155/C/12/000170 for purchasing his Maruti car bearing No.KL 29 B 7061 that the complainant was regularly paying the loan instalments. Thereafter the opposite party intimated the complainant that if a lump sum payment of Rs.30,000/- is effected the loan account can be closed. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant by availing the amount from his friends and remitted the aforesaid amount to the opposite party on 24.05.2018 as per the DD No.776839. On the same day itself, he had also remitted Rs.550/- for getting No Objection Certificate required for removing hypothecation endorsed in the registration certificate. At the time the opposite party assured that the NOC and connected records will be prepared and sent through the registered post within two months. According to the complainant after lapse of the two months opposite party has not fulfill the assurance given at the time of closing the loan in full and final settlement. Thereafter on an enquiry complainant got knowledge from the office of the opposite party that as per the system entries the loan is still operative that an endorsement “payment pending”. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party and then they informed the complainant that the Senior clerk has committed a mistake regarding the proposal No.PG/0119/C/11/000363 in the place of original proposal No. of the complainant PG/0155/C/12/000170 and opposite party had assured the complainant that they will rectify the mistake soon and will issue the No Objection Certificate without any failure. Thereafter also no response from the part of the opposite party. In the said circumstances the complainant approached the Karunagappally police and preferred a complaint and also filed a pre litigation before the Taluk Legal Service Authority, Karunagappally but the opposite party deliberately abstained from appearing from the proceedings of the Taluk Legal Service Authority. It is evident from the available materials on records that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and he is entitled to for fairness and transparency of settlement in the above said financial assistance. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party had received the entire car finance in the said loan transaction. The complainant is entitled to get back the No Objection Certificate and the records. Even though the opposite party received Rs.550/- for No Objection Certificate till now they have not issued the same to the complainant. It a settled law the No Objection Certificate from the financier is mandatory to remove the hypothecation endorsement from the registration certificate, complainant is very exigent for the same. Since due to fault committed by the opposite party by wrongly entering another proposal number in the entries of the computer system the complainant had to suffer hardships and monitory loss. So the opposite party is obliged to rectify the mistake that happen from their hands and not to humiliate the customer who closed the financial assistance in strict adherence to the terms of the loan agreement.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view the opposite parties had wilfully refused to give the said NOC certificate and connected documents after receiving the entire loan amount and fee for issuing the NOC. So it can be safely be concluded that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the circumstances the complaint is only to be allowed.
In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.
- The opposite party is directed to include Rs.30,000/- remitted by complainant on 24.05.2018 as per DD No.776839 proposal No.PG/0155/C/12/000170 in the loan account.
- Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.30,000/- interest @ 12% if the opposite party fails to issue the No Objection Certificate.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss and costs of the complainant.
- Opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the opposite party and its assets.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 4th day of August 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.A1 : The loan customer proposal letter issued along with agreement of the financial
assistance dated 21.01.2014.
Ext.A2 : The receipt issued from the opposite party for Rs.30,000/- in proposal
No.PG/0119/C/11/000363.
Ext.A3 : Receipt of Rs.550/- dated 19.03.2019 paid to the opposite party for issuing
No Objection Certificate
Ext.A4 : The copy of FD receipt issued from the Canara Bank
Ext.A5 : Advocate notice
Ext.A6 : The PLP No.2328 petition filed before the Taluk Legal Service Authority,
Karunagappally
Ext.A7 : The complaint filed before the Karunagappally Police Station
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
