For Complainant          :             Self

For Opp. Parties            :             None.

                                                                        -x-

1.                         The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he availed loan from the OP for purchase of Hero Honda Motorcycle but after sanction of loan the OP did not supply the loan agreement copy or schedule of payment.  It is submitted that the OP orally asked the complainant to pay loan dues in 20 EMIs @ Rs.1380/-.  Accordingly the OP received 20 PDCs of United Bank of India from the complainant from Cheque No.949721 to 949740 (20 Nos.) and received payments through cheques.  It is submitted that the OP could not place the Cheque No.949728 in the Bank for its own fault and asked the complainant to pay the EMI in cash in lieu of Cheque and the complainant deposited Rs.1830/- in cash with the OP vide Receipt No.9838611 dt.10.06.2008 but the OP did not return the cheque against which it received the cash.  It is further submitted that instead of placing Cheque No.949731 in the bank, the OP requested the complainant to pay cash and the complainant has paid Rs.1830/- to the OP vide Receipt No.11502897 dt.12.09.2008 but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OP placed the said cheque No.949731 with the bank on 15.09.2008 and received Rs.1830/- which makes a double payment.  It is also further submitted that the OP placed Cheque No.949736 in the bank which was bounced for want of fund.  Except Cheque No.949736, the OP has received all the EMIs and a double payment in case of Cheque No.949731 i.e. on 12.09.2008 and 15.09.2008.  The complainant submitted that after payment of all the dues, the OP did not issue NOC in respect of the vehicle.  The complainant approached the OP to issue NOC and the OP assured but on the other day the OP asked the complainant to pay one pending EMI.  When the complainant asked the OP to issue accounts statement for his perusal, the OP denied issuing the same.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to release NOC in respect of the vehicle and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                         In spite of valid notice and after 18 adjournments also, the OP has neither filed counter nor participated in this proceeding in any manner.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

3.                         In this case, the complainant stated that he availed loan from the OP to purchase a motorcycle but the OP after sanction of loan, did not supply the copy of loan agreement or schedule of payment.  It is further stated that the OP verbally asked the complainant to repay the loan dues in 20 EMIs @ Rs.1830/- and the complainant also issued 20 PDCs from Sl. No.949721 to 949740 of United Bank of India in favour of the Op.  It is stated that the OP deposited the cheques regularly in the bank of the complainant but without placing Cheque No. 949728 and 949731, the OP insisted cash payment.  The complainant has paid the cash of Rs.1830/- each vide Receipt No.9838611 dt.10.06.2008 and No.11502897 dt.12.09.2008 respectively.  The complainant also stated that after receipt of cash for Cheque No.949731 on 12.09.2008, the OP placed the said cheque in the bank fraudulently and encashed Rs.1830/- from the bank accounts of the complainant on 15.09.2008.  The complainant also further stated that the Cheque No.949736 was placed by the OP in the bank but the said cheque was bounced due to insufficient fund but for one cheque the OP has received double payment.

4.                         In absence of counter and participation by the OP in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from them and hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged.  Now it is to be seen as to whether the OP has received all the 20 EMIs from the complainant.  The complainant has filed copy of his Bank passbook in which EMIs @ Rs.1830/- drawn by the OP through cheques have been clearly mentioned.  Further the complainant has filed two cash receipts issued by the Ops.

5.                         On perusal of documents available on record it was ascertained that except Cheque No.943728 and 949736, all the cheques have been encashed by the OP.  It is further seen that 2 cash payments have been made @ Rs.1830/- on 12.09.2008 and 10.06.2008 vide M. R. No.11502897 and 9838611 respectively.  Therefore, as ascertained from the record, the complainant has paid all the EMIs and no EMI is pending against the complainant.  The complainant stated that the OP has not supplied copy of loan agreement and schedule of payment.  Further it is very much clear from the record and pleadings that the complainant has paid all the EMIs but in spite of knowing that, the OP has not issued NOC in favour of the vehicle of the complainant.  The activities of the OP in our opinion amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant stated that for want of NOC he sustained loss as he could not able to sell his vehicle.  For this inaction of the OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  Further the OP is to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the vehicle of the complainant.

6.                         Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the vehicle of the complainant and to pay Rs.2000/- towards compensation besides Rs.1000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)