Sri A.K.Patra,President

1. Heard. Perused the material on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of the Ld. Counsel for both the parties present.
2. The captioned Consumer Complaint is filed by the complainant named above alleging negligence, deficiency in giving service & unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties for denial of issuance of “NO DUE CERTIFICATE”/NOC with respect to the financed vehicle.
3. The Complainant has prayed for the following relief(s) :-

 (a) An order to bind the OP to the foreclosure of the vehicle loan account based on the closure receipt dta.08.02.2023

 (b) An order to declare any further amount claimed/demanded by the Op towards the vehicle loan against the complainant as legally untenable,

 (c) An order directing the Op to issue the NOC Certificate,

 (d) An order to restrain the OP , its officials, representative or any other agency of the OP, against threatening the complainant or confiscating the said tractor,

(e) And the Ops be held guilty on account of adopting unfair trade practices as well as deficiency in service in the matter of financing and collection of the EMI,

(f)  An order directing the Op to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive damage against the conscious wrong doing along with fraud, mischief, harassment and deficiency of service,

(g) An order directing the Op to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of litigation in this case,

(h) And any other relief(s) as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper in this facts & circumstances.

4.   The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that, the complainant has availed a vehicle loan from the OP Company vide Loan Agreement No.OGK002394F1901373178 and   have purchased a  Tractor  bearing Regd. No.OD08L6490 in the year 2019  which was hypothecated with the  OP/ financer. The complainant was paying the EMI regularly but due to frequent breakdown of the said tractor & medical emergency of the complainant he could not able to pay the EMIs for which the complainant approached the Op to foreclose the loan. He also submits a written request through letter to the BM of the Op Company on  dt.08/02/2023 (Annexure –I)to which the BM  informed the complainant  that, the company’s representative will visit  and will informed  him about the foreclosure procedure. The representative of the Op company namely Chinmaya Padhi contacted the complainant and informed that, the complainant  is required  to pay Rs.1,15,000/- towards  closure of the loan and advised the complainant to contact the BM of the company and to act as per the instruction of the authorized person Chinmaya  Padhi. The complainant arranged the required amount and paid in cash to the said authorized representative of the company who issued a receipt bearing Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 (Annexure –II) for an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with “Closure Bill”  and asked the complainant to apply for     ” No Objection Certificate(NOC)” of the said vehicle  and took his signature on a letter  addressed to the BM, L&T Finance Ltd., Jeypore  dt. 08/02/2023 (Annexure –III) and informed that, the process will take few weeks to be completed. Later on the complainant  approached  the OP to enquire about the NOC of the financed vehicle but the OP /Branch Manger  replied his ignorance  of any closure of loan to which the complainant  shared the documents about the payment of Rs.1,15,000/- and requested to issue  the closure bill  but the OP/BM replied that, he cannot help the complainant in this regard and threatened the complainant to pay all the balance amount  or else  said tractor will be confiscated. It is further stated that, on dt.28.06.2023 some persons came to the house of the complainant and asked him to pay the entire EMI amount or else they will take away the said hypothecated tractor and when the complainant asked them to show the details of the loan and the balance amount they replied that, it will be sent to the complainant later on but till now the OP has not served any demand letter towards the vehicle loan to the complainant.  The complainant was cheated by the OP even after payment of demand amount for closure of the vehicle loan & issuance of closure receipt. The OP harassed the complainant and threatened to forcibly confiscated the financed tractor hence, this complaint.
5. To substantiate his  claim the complainant has filed  the true copy of the following documents supported by an affidavit of the complainant:-

1. The original receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.202
2. The photocopy of the application 08/02/2023 for NOC submitted to the Branch Manager L & T Finance Ltd. Bhawanipatna,
3. The Photocopy of the application dt.08/02/2023 of NOC submitted to the Branch Manager L&T Finance  Ltd. Jeypore.
4.  The Photocopy of Tax Invoice of the Tafe Tractor,
5. The Photocopy of the Registration particular of the Tafe Tractor bearing Regd. No.D08L6490.

6.  On being notice the OP appeared through their learned counsel Mr.M.R.Mohanty  and  filed written version denying allegation of deficient service & unfair trade practice. However admitted  the facts that, the complainant has availed a loan amount of  Rs.4,90,000/- with flat rate of interest @ 9.44% from the Opposite Parties vide Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement No.0KG002394F1901373178 which was disbursed to the complainant on 30/04/2019 to purchase the said  Tafe Tractor bearing Engine No. S337B22073 & Chassis No.MEA665A5BK  and agreed to repay the loan within  74 month payable in quarterly EMIs of @ Rs.36,070/-  each commencing from 05/07/2020  and complainant further agreed that, in case of default in payment in scheduled time further due compensation @ 36% per annum will recovered from the complainant .As the complainant fails to repay the installments regularly in due time as per the repayment schedule for which the OP issued Loan Recall Notice on dt. 07/10/2022 to the complainant requesting him to pay Rs.3,62,078.484 as on dt. 06/10/2022 along with further compensation thereon @ 36% p.a from dt.06/10/2022 till realization of the entire loan due. Incase to fail to repay the above amount the OP may proceed for sale proceeding to recover the loan due in due process of law. The loan amount outstanding against the complainant as on date of 17/07/2023 is Rs. 3,33,079.49/- .The OP has never  offer or issued any letter for settlement of loan by depositing Rs.1,15,000/- in any form of speaking ,writing ,print or viewing .The complainant misrepresenting the facts and preferred this complaint on vexatious ground. It is stated that in the month of February 2023 the complainant volunteers to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the loan account accordingly a money receipt was issued but the OP never assured the complainant to settled the loan with that deposited amount. This complainant is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan and to escape from seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment and there is no question of any cause of action for this complain.  The Op also quoted the Clauses of  2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, of said  loan –cum- Hypothecation Agreement in their  written version and urged to dismissed this complaint with cost. .

7.   To substantiate their claim the Ops have filed the copy of following documents: - (i) Loan recall Notice dt.07/10/2022, (ii) Foreclosure Letter for Loan Account Number  OKGOO2394F1901373178 dt. 17^th July 2023. (iii)  Account statement dt.17/07/2023 of the loan account of OKGOO2394F1901373178 for the period of 30 April 2019 to 17 July 2023

8.  After perusal of the complaint petition, written version and all the documents relied on by both the parties placed on the record, the points for consideration before this Commission is :- whether there is any unfair trade practice & deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party Finance Company for non issue of “NOC” with respect to the subject financed vehicle and whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed?

9.  The fact that, the complainant has purchased the subject vehicle  being financed by the OPs  vide loan –cum -hypothecation agreement vide Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement No.0KG002394F1901373178 and that, the complainant got default in repayment  of the loan as per the agreement but later on he has paid Rs.1,15,000 vide money Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 to the OP and that, the OP has not issued NOC /NDC with respect to subject  vehicle claiming outstanding loan dues against the complainant as on date is not disputed.

10.  As per Sec.38 (6) of C.P.Act 2019 every complaint shall be heard by the District Commission on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence placed on record; as such it casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide the complaint on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider/seller, irrespective of whether the service provider/seller adduced evidence or not. The decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant. The onus thus is on the complainant making allegation.

11.  To proved his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence as prescribe under C.P Act 2019 , the averment of which is corroborating with the averment of the complaint petition. He has also stated on affidavit that ,he has not been served with any demand notice or statement of account towards the vehicle loan and further stated that, he has never received any loan recall notice dt.07^th Oct 2022 as claimed by the OP and again stated that, he has not received any foreclosure letter dt. 17^th July 2023 and claimed that, he is entitled for all the relief(s) prayed in his complaint petition.

12.  The OP has filed the affidavit evidence of one Sri. Vikky Kumar , the Divisional Legal Manager  at L& T Finance Ltd  , averment of which are corroborating with the averment of their written version .

13.  It is the contention of the complainant that, one  Chinmaya Padhi who is the authorized representative of the Op company contacted the complainant and informed that, the complainant  is required  to pay Rs.1,15,000/- towards  closure of the loan accordingly the  complainant arranged the required amount and paid in cash to the said authorized person namely Chinmaya Padhi , who issued the money received annexure ii of his complaint petition with an endorsement “closer bill” dt. 08/02/2023   and asked the complainant to apply for” No Objection Certificate(NOC)” of the said vehicle  and took his signature on a letter  addressed to the BM, L&T Finance Ltd., Jeypore dt. 08/02/2023(annexure-iii) and informed that, the process will take few weeks to be completed. On the other hand the Op has denied any talk with the complainant for foreclosure of the loan and stated that, said amount of Rs 1,15,000/- vide money Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 (Annexure –ii of the complaint petition) is made in due course of repayment of the loan . The Op in their affidavit evidence stated that, in the month of February 2023 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- to the loan account accordingly a money receipt was issued and  the OP never assured the complainant to settled the loan with that deposited amount and that ,this complainant is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan and to escape from seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment of loan due against the complainant and there is no question of any cause of action for this complain.

14.  In the above facts & circumstances we are of the opinion that,  onus lies on the complainant to proved the facts that, he had a talk with the authorized reprehensive and paid the amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- vide money Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 (Annexure –ii of the complaint petition) towards  foreclosure of the loan by examine the author of the said  bill who has  written in ink on the top of the bill as “closer Bill” but neither said Chinmaya Padhi nor any independent  person, who is well-known to the handwriting of said Chinmaya Padhi & have witness making such endorsement on the money Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 (Annexure –ii of the complaint petition), is examined to proved the said endorsement of “closer Bill” as such we are unable to conclude that, loan has been closed by the Op on receiving of said amount of Rs.1,15,000/- under the annexure –ii of the complainant petition .

15.  The  undisputed account statement dt 17/07/2023 of the loan account of OKGOO2394F1901373178 for the period of 30 April 2019 to 17 July 2023 there placed in the record clearly proved that, the complainant has been paying the loan on different dates i.e. Rs. 3607/-on dt.05 April 2023 ,      Rs. 29270/-on 16^th June 2023 even after payment of Rs. 1,15,000/- dt. 8^th Feb.2023  as such we are unable to hold that, the complainant has any thought remain in his mind that, he has already closed the loan by virtue of money Receipt No.SO8022382619 dt.08.02.2023 (Annexure –ii of the complaint petition) rather we found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the Op that , this complaint is filed only to avoid repayment of the loan & to escape from seizer of the vehicle for nonpayment and there is no question of any cause of action for this complain

16.  Law is well settled that, complainant is to prove deficiency in service as alleged against the Ops but here the complainant failed to prove any negligence & deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops as alleged in his complainant petition. Rather it is proved on admission that, the complainant is defaulted in repayment of loan availed from the Op. We found much weight on the submission of the learned counsel for the Op that, the complainant is not in clean hand deliberately avoiding repayment of loan due against him. The borrower /complainant is duty bound to repay the loan received from the OP .We are of the opinion that, there is nothing illegal or deficient service on the part of the OP for non issue of  “NOC”  with respect the subject financed vehicle and for issue of Loan recall notice on  7^th Oct 2022 to the complainant asking repayment of outstanding loan due against him.

17.  Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, this complaint sans merits as such the complainant is not entitled for the relief(s) claimed.  Hence, complaint is dismissed against the OPs on contest. However, no order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by me

    Sd/- 

President.

                  I   agree.

Sd/-

Member

 Pronounced in open forum today on this 28th   day of December ,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission .

The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

  Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.