Kerala

Malappuram

CC/11/2013

IBRAHIM. S/O CHEKKU(LATE) - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/2013
 
1. IBRAHIM. S/O CHEKKU(LATE)
MELETHIL HOUSE,KODASSERI, CHEMBRASSERI [POST) PANDIKKAD
MALAPPURAM DIST
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE MANAGER, MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE & LEASING LTD
BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI
MALAPPURAM DIST
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR MANAPPURAM GENERAL FINANCE&LLEASING LTD
REGISTERED OFFICE,MANAPPURAM HOUSE,VI/104,VALAPAD-680 567
THRISSUR
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMEDALI K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. MADANAVALLY RK MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MINI MATHEW MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

 

By: Miss. R.K.Madanavally, Member

Facts in brief:-

The complainant is the Rgd. Owner of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. KL-10-AB-1811 Goods Auto Rikshaw. He had availed a loan from opposite party No1 by executing an hypothication agreement. The opposite party No1 had also collected three blank cheques and stamp paper from the complainant. The total amount of the loan availed was 1,14000/-. The total amount with interest will comes Rs.209124.

 

Though the complainant had paid the entire amount, the opposite party No1 was not ready to issue No Objection Certificate and thereafter the complainant paid an additional amount of Rs.9000/- to the opposite party No1. Though the complainant repeatedly demanded the NOC, blank cheques and stamp paper, the opposite party No1 was not ready to issue the same. Due to the above acts the complainant was unable to sell the vehicle and he lost the opportunity to go abroad. According to the complainant opposite party No1 is deficient in service and thereby he sustained huge loss. Hence this complaint.

 

The opposite party appeared and filed their detailed version by challenging the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the case. How ever, they didn't challenge the availing of the loan, loan amount or payment etc by the complainant. More over they submitted that the documents of the complainant including the NOC were handed over to the complainant in February 2012 and there was no notice or a letter from complainant about the non – receipt of NOC or other documents. Further, the complainant could have applied for a duplicate one. Hence the complaint is not entitled for any compensation. Hence complaint has to be dismissed with cost.

 

Now the questions arises for our consideration here in are;

 

1) Whether the opposite party is deficient in service?

2) If so relief and cost?

Point No1 and 2

The complainant had produced his documents which were marked as Ext. A1 to A5. The opposite party had produced the Duplicate copy of HP Termination letter and NOC before this Forum and as per IA 345/14, the complainant had received the same from this Forum with permission. As the opposite party had not disputed the loan amount, payment etc the burden of the Forum is very simple. In the version filed by the opposite party No1, they submitted that they had already issued the HP Termination letter and NOC.

 

At the same time complainant submitted that he had not received the NOC from opposite parties. There is no proof for the issuance or acceptance of the NOC. It is pertinent to not that the opposite party is not keeping any register/file which issuing the vital documents. If they had issued the same, they should have entered the details in a register kept by them. But there is no proof. Without producing any proof, we are pressuming that opposite party had not issued the original HP Termination letter . Hence, we find deficiency upon the opposite party No1. Admittedly they were magnanimous to the complainant by producing the duplicate copy.

 

Further, as directed by this Forum opposite party had filed an Affidavit stating that they shall not misuse the cheque Nos, 080641,080642 and 080643 and stamp papers which were belonged to the complainant, if it is find out. Hence almost all prayer of the complainant is satisfied. Now remains the compensation aspects.

 

Even after the closing of the loan, the complainant was forced to wait for a along time to obtain his NOC. He might had suffered much pain and mental agony during these period.

 

What ever may be the reason, he should be compensated reasonably,. He had cleared the loan and the same admitted by opposite party.

 

Hence in the interest of Justice we are allowing the complaint in part and order that opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.8000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 

This order shall be complied within one month form the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

Dated this 15th day of April, 2015

 

K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT

R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5

Ext.A1 : H.P lease installment payment book issued by 1s opposite party.

Ext.A2 : Registration Certificate of the vehicle No.Kl-10-AB-1811

Ext A3 : Photo copy of passport Bearing No. E.6580426

Ext A4 : Photo copy of Visa

Ext A5 : Photo copy of Service certificate

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil

K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT

R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER

MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMEDALI K]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MS. MADANAVALLY RK]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MINI MATHEW]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.