Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows.  The complainant who availed a loan from opposite parties by hypothecating his vehicle bearing registration No. KL-03-707 (Toyota Corolla) car on 25/04/2013.  It is contented that the opposite parties realized more amount by violating the terms and conditions of the loan agreement between the parties.  The complainant and opposite parties arrived in terms and settle the loan transaction for an amount of Rs. 45,000/-.  It is further contended that though the complainant endorsed the cancelation of hypothecation in the RC book the name of the complainant was continuing as a ‘default customer’.  So the complainant failed to get any kind of loan from any banks.  When the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the same the 2^nd opposite party demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- for the removal of his name from CIBIL.  It is further contended that the opposite parties purposefully and deliberately acted against the complainant as such they committed deficiency in service against the complainant.  Hence this case to remove the name of the complainant from CIBIL, compensation, cost, etc, etc,.
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for their appearance. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version as follows.  It is admitted that the complainant who availed a hypothecation loan from the opposite party as alleged by executing a hypothecation agreement.  According to the opposite parties as per the agreement the complainant has to pay 36 monthly installments for the said loan from 25/05/2013 to 25/04/2016.    It is further contended that the complainant made default in the payment even after repeated demand of the opposite party so that on 18/04/2015 and 30/11/2015 two notices were issued to the complainant for payment.  At last the matter was referred to arbitrator on 25/01/2016 vide reference No.747/16.  Apart from the above said proceeding the opposite parties moved attachment proceeding against the complainants before the District Court, Ernakulam vide opposite party (arbitration) NO. 1442/2015. It is admitted that the opposite parties settled the claim amount for Rs. 45,000/- on 11/03/2016 as per the request of the complainant.  It is further contended that the loan was closed on 11/03/2016 and the respondent informed this matter to the authorized agency for the removal of complainant’s name from CIBIL on 31/03/2016.  It is contended that the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and also submitted that without making any delay they informed the removal of complainant’s name from the CIBIL to the concerned.  Therefore the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. We peruse the complaint, version and records and we framed the following issues for consideration.  

1. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
2. Regarding the relief and costs?

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1. Through PW1 Ext. A1 to A4 were also marked. Ext. A1 is the receipt for Rs. 45,000/- issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.  Ext. A2 is the copy of evidence issued to the CIBIL – black list. Ext. A3 is the statement of account.  Ext. A4 is the copy of NOC not mentioned in the affidavit.   At the time of cross-examination Ext. B1 and B2 were also marked through PW1. Ext. B1 is the copy of hypothecation agreement.  Ext. B2 is the lawyer’s notice.  On the other side the liaison officer of the opposite party one George Thomas was examined as DW1 and marked Ext. B3 and B4. Ext. B3 is the Power of Attorney.  Ext. B4 is the opposite party’s intimation to the CIBIL for the removal of the complainant’s name dated: 31/03/2016.  The complainant himself cross-examined DW1.  After the closure of evidence we heard both sides
6.  Point No.1&2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2 together. The complainant he who deposed as PW1 and produced Ext. A1 to A4 in his favour.  It is admitted that the complainant he who availed a loan from the opposite parties by hypothecating his Toyota car bearing registration No. Kl-03-707 on 30/04/2013.  According to PW1 he made the payment in time and committed any default for the installment payment.  As per Ext. A1 it is admitted that on 29/02/2016 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 45,000/- to the opposite party and settle the loan transaction the opposite parties are also admitted Ext. A2.  When we go through the evidence of this case the main question to be considered is whether the opposite party committed any deficiency in service for informing the closure of loan to the official concerned CIBIL.  When we peruse the Exhibit produced by the complainant it is come out in evidence that his name is mentioned in CIBIL (Credit Information Beuro India Limited) as per Ext. A2.  Ext. A3 is a statement of account issued by opposite party with regard to the loan repayment.  Ext. A4 dated: 11/03/2016 shows that the opposite parties cancelled the hypothecation endorsement in the RC Book for creating necessary changes in the RC Book.  Ext B1 is the copy of the hypothecation agreement between the parties and Ext. B2 is a notice issued by the opposite party against the complainant informing the involvement of arbitration proceedings against the complainant.  Ext. B3 is a special Power of Attorney in favour of DW1 for appearance before the Forum related to this case.  Ext. B4 which shows that the opposite parties informed the CIBIL for the removal of the complainant’s name from there on 31/03/2016.  If we rely Ext. B4 we cannot found any kind of deficiency in service or negligence on the part of opposite parties for making any kind of delay with regard to the intimation of the closure of account of the complainant.  When we look into the contention of the complainant the only point raised by him was the purposeful delay committed by opposite parties for informing the details of the closure of his loan to the concerned.  As per Ext. A1 it is clear to see that on 29/02/2016 the complainant closed the loan with the opposite party by paying Rs. 45,000/- as a settlement.  If so the intimation of the closure of loan to the CIBIL on 31/03/2016 could not be considered as a delay or laches on the part of the opposite parties.  On the basis of the above discussion it can be inferred that the complainant is not succeeded to prove any kind of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties.  Moreover it is evident to see that even arbitration cases are also pending against the complainant with regard to the loan transaction.  Hence Point No.1&2 are found against the complainant.  
7. In the result, we pass the following order.

1. The case is dismissed.
2. No order for cost.

                    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of June, 2018.

                                                                                              (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

                                                                                          (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :  (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : G. Sugathan

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Receipt for Rs. 45,000/- issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.

A2 : Copy of evidence issued to the CIBIL – black list.

A3 : Statement of account. 

A4 : copy of NOC not mentioned in the affidavit.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1 : George Thomas

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

B1 : Copy of hypothecation agreement.

B2 : The lawyer’s notice. 

B3 : Power of Attorney. 

B4 : The opposite parties intimation to the CIBIL for the removal of the

        complainant’s name from the list dated: 31/03/2016.

                                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) G. Sugathan,

 Samgamam, Kotta P.O, Karakkad, Pathanamthitta.

2.  M.George,

      Muthoot Vehicle Leasing and Finance Ltd.,

      Kurian Tower, Ernakulam.

3.  Branch Manager,

      Muthoot Vehicle Leasing and Finance Ltd.,

      Aban Tower, Pathanamthitta.

4.  The Stock File.