BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.103/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 7^th December 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri. Devakumar,M.C.                           

Member

1.     The complainants have filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act against the opposite parties, alleging deficiency in service and seeking direction to issue No objection certificate having cleared the entire loan amount in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-11-A5101 Maxicab and return of unregistered original gift deed in the name of the complainant No.1, unregistered original panchayat palupatti, one original tax paid receipt and RTC in respect of the immovable property survey No.89/B situated in Mogarahalli Village, Sriranga Patna Taluk and to return the 14 cheques bearing Nos.2521626 to 2521639 of M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank and compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony with such other reliefs.
2.    The complainant entering into a loan cum hypothecation agreement, purchased a Maxicab vehicle by borrowing a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from opposite party No.1.  A sum of Rs.12,950/- was agreed to pay for every month between 15.08.2012 to 15.07.2016.  Complainant repaid a total sum of Rs.4,56,640/- towards the loan amount with interest between 15.08.2012 to 31.07.2015. Still the opposite party issued a notice on 14.12.2016, calling upon to pay Rs.4,19,824/- apart from threatening to seize the vehicle.  The opposite party committed deficiency in service by not issuing the “No objection certificate”.  Hence, the aggrieved filed the complaint, seeking reliefs.
3.     The ops filed common version and submits, the complainant borrowed a loan of Rs.4,54,342/- and the complainant with one Sri Nagaraj entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement for purchase of a vehicle, agreeing to the terms and conditions.  It was agreed to repay the entire loan amount in 48 EMIs each of Rs.12,950/- between 15.08.2012 to 15.07.2016 (i.e. 12950 x 48 = 6,21,600/-), but failed to pay as per schedule, which lead to levy of penal charges.  The one time settlement offer given through a notice dated 14.12.2016 was not accepted by the complainant, instead filed this frivolous complaint, seeking reliefs. As on 15.05.2017, the complainant owes an outstanding amount of Rs.4,46,751.94.
4.     Further, opposite party also submit that, already an arbitration proceedings were conducted and an award was passed on 20.04.2015 and by suppressing this facts filed this complaint for wrongful gains and hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed with costs.
5.    Both parties lead evidence by filing affidavit with several documents to establish the facts.  By filing written arguments, the respective counsels submitted oral arguments.  Perusing the material on record, matter posted for orders.
6.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether the complainants establishes the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, in not issuing NOC and return of documents deposited while availing loan and thereby they are entitled for the reliefs sought?
3. What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- Does not call for discussion

Point No.3 :- As per final order, for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- The complainant borrowed loan to purchase a vehicle from opposite party No.1, agreeing to repay the loan amount with interest in 48 EMIs.  But, failed to repay as per schedule and became defaulter.  Thereby, the opposite party referred the matter to arbitrator and award was passed on 20.04.2015, in the arbitration proceedings.  Even after an offer of one time settlement, was not complied by the complainant.  Concealing the arbitration proceedings the present complaint has been filed seeking reliefs.  In view of the same, the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  Hence, the point No.1 is answered in the negative.
9.   Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, this point does not call for discussion.      
10. Point No.3-With the observations in point No.1, the complaint is to be dismissed as not maintainable.  Hence, the following        

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 7^th December 2018)