Order No. 19 dt. 22/03/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant entered into a loan agreement for purchasing a car with o.p. The loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.2,20,500/-. The complainant as per terms of the said agreement paid EMI of Rs.8065/- commencing from 11.8.08. In spite of payment of the entire amount and since no outstanding dues is left the complainant requested for ‘No Objection Certificate’ from o.p. but o.p. failed to issue the same. Subsequently on 8.7.13 the complainant sent lawyer’s notice asking for NOC from o.p. but no step was taken by o.p. for which the complainant filed this case praying or direction upon the o.p. to issue NOC and to pay the financial loss and litigation cost of Rs. 5 lakhs.
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the case is barred by limitation since the loan agreement was entered into between the parties on 12.12.07 and it was decided that the complainant should pay the loan amount along with finance charges amounting to Rs.2,82,275/- with the following terms and conditions: (1) The complainant should repay the loan amount in 35 monthly installments @ Rs.8065/- starting from 11.1.08 and (2) The vehicle would remain hypothecated till realization of the entire dues as per the terms of the said agreement. The complainant availed of the loan amount but he was irregular in making payment of his EMI and he made various default and most of the installments were paid beyond the due dates. The complainant did not clear the outstanding dues. Because of such non payment of dues within the time the outstanding kept on increasing a sum of Rs.50,532/- has become due and payable by the complainant. In view of the said fact and the agreement was entered into between the parties on 12.12.07 which expired on 11.11.10 and the complaint was filed in the year 2014 and as per statutory provision of C.P. Act the case was not filed within two years, therefore the case is barred by limitation. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant took loan from o.p. for purchasing the vehicle.
- Whether the complainant paid the EMI regularly.
- Whether the complainant paid all the EMIs within the stipulated period as mentioned in the agreement.
- Whether the complainant cleared all the dues to o.p.
- Whether the o.p. failed to issue NOC.
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that as per the terms of the loan agreement entered into between the parties the loan was sanctioned to the complainant for purchasing a car being no.WB 24K 0328. The complainant as per the terms of the agreement paid EMI regularly @ Rs.8065/-. In spite of clearing all the dues o.p. did not issue NOC for which the complainant had to file this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to issue NOC as well as other relief.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant took loan from o.p. and the loan was sanctioned on 12.12.07 and the amount was fixed to be paid by the complainant in 35 installments @ Rs.8065/- starting from 11.1.08. The complainant after availing of the loan purchased the vehicle and he was irregular in making payment of EMI since inception of the agreement. He made various defaults which resulted in accumulation of dues. Most of the installments were paid beyond the due dates and because of such delay in payment the complainant was liable to pay the delay payment charges. Ld. lawyer for o.p. emphasized that the complainant filed this case beyond the statutory period of two years since the agreement was entered into on 11.1.08 and the agreement for repayment of the entire dues was 11.11.10 and the case was filed in the year 2014. In the mean time the lawyer’s letter was sent on 8.7.13 in order to create the limitation for filing the instant application. In this respect ld. lawyer cited a ruling as reported in Vol IV 2014 CPJ 509 (NC) wherein it was held that neither serving of notice upon the o.ps. nor their response to the said notice gave any fresh cause of action to the complainant to file the complaint. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above ld. lawyer for o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant took loan from o.p. for purchasing a car and in the loan agreement it was stated that the complainant should pay the EMI @ 8065/- and the entire loan is to be liquidated within 35 installments and the period of liquidating the entire amount was fixed on 10.12.10, but the complainant failed to pay the said amount within the said period. In order to prove the same o.p. filed the statement of account wherefrom it is evident that the complainant paid the amount not as per the terms of the said agreement and sometimes he paid lesser amount than the agreed amount of Rs.8065/- per month as EMI. Therefore from the statement of account submitted by o.p. it is crystal clear that due to non payment of the EMI within the stipulated period the outstanding dues kept on increasing. Though the complainant claimed that he paid the entire EMI* but the documents filed by o.p. clearly proves that the total amount was due to o.p. to the tune of Rs.50,532/- as stood on 15.6.15. Until and unless the said amount is paid by the complainant the o.p. cannot be given direction to issue NOC. Though ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the actual amount as per the terms of the agreement was not sanctioned to the complainant but the complainant did not raise any objection at the time of acceptance of the agreement or availing of the loan facility from o.p. While the o.p. claimed the amount such plea was taken by the complainant that the entire amount was not disbursed. In order to avoid his liability to pay the outstanding the amount such plea was taken by the complainant. The complainant himself was at fault and because of non clearing of the due amount to the o.p., the o.p. had no other alternative but refrained from issuing the NOC to the complainant. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the complainant should clear the due amount of Rs.50,532/- to o.p. and thereafter the complainant will be entitled to get the NOC from o.p. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No. 20/2014 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The complainant is directed to pay the outstanding due amount of Rs.50,532/- (Rupees fifty thousand five hundred thirty two) only to the o.p. within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and thereafter the o.p. should issue No Objection certificate to the complainant within 15 days, on failure to pay the amount by the complainant the complainant will have to pay interest @ 10% on the aforesaid amount. After receiving the amount the o.p. should issue the NOC within 15 days. If the NOC is not issued in spite of receiving the amount the complainant will be entitled to get compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only from the o.p. within the stipulated period of 30 days, after that the complainant will get 10% interest on the said amount till the obtaining of NOC from the o.p.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
