D.O.F:20/08/2020
D.O.O:30/11/2021
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.98/2020
Dated this, the 30th day of November 2021
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Vijayan.C.K
S/o Kunchan,
R/at Chalakkal House, P.O Movvar,
Kumbadaje Village, : Complainant
Kasaragod Taluk and District, 671551
(Adv: Mohan Prakash.K)
And
1. The Manager
TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,
Pranavam Building, Kannur,
Mele Chava, Kannur : Opposite Parties
2. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,
Pranavam Building, Kannur,
3. TATA MOTORS FINANCE LIMITED,
I – Think Techno Campus Building,
A 2nd Floor, Off; Pokhran Road 2
Thane West 400601
(Adv: Preman Mavila)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
Facts of the case in brief as follows
Complainant purchased a vehicle in 2013. The vehicle is hypothecated with the Opposite Party Rs, 1,80,000/- was availed as loan repayable in 48 monthly installments. Complainant has re paid entire amount due. But Opposite Party erroneously demanded a sum of Rs. 7500/- without any justification for which complainant refused to pay complainant sent a lawyer notice on 21/07/2020 with a request to issue a loan clearance letter. But Opposite Party did not send any reply yet.
2. There is serious deficiency in service from Opposite Party. Complainant suffered great mental tension and agony. Permit of vehicle could not to be extended. He is entitled to damage and compensation for causing unnecessary mental agony and causing financial loss due to the serious negligence, latches and deficiency in service of Opposite Party. And prayed to direct the Opposite Party to issue clearance certificate of the vehicle and to pay compensation with costs.
3. Opposite Party filed its written version raising territorial jurisdiction as per contract is in Mumbai, that complainant is not a consumer, contract value of vehicle is Rs. 2,52,072/- and financed amount is Rs.1,80,000/- repayable 48 EMI. For payment made they are accurate. For delayed payments default interest is payable. NOC will be issued only if of full amount is paid. As per records a sum of Rs. 6360/- towards overdue installments and Rs. 4714is due as over charges as on 21/09/2020. Thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The Complainant filed chief affidavit marked documents as Ext A1 to A 52. Ext A1 is the chart and Ext A2 to A49 are payment receipts, Ext A50 is registered notice, Ext 51 and 52 are postal acknowledgment. The opposite party filed documents marked as Ext B1 is the hire purchase agreement repayment details.
5. Following points arised for consideration in this case.
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service negligence on the part of Opposite Party?
b) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief claimed in the complaint? If so for what reliefs?
6. As per the rule, the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of a permit shall apply for issue of a no objection certificate within 7 days of the receipt of an application the financier may issue or refuse, for reasons which shall be recorded is writing communicate to the applicant to issue the certificate applied for, and where they fail to issue the certificate and also fails to communicate reasons for the refused to issue the certificate to the applicant within the said period of seven days. The certificate applied for shall be deemed to have been issued by the financier.
7. In the instant case the hire purchase agreement is dated on 30/06/2015. The complainant issued a registered lawyer notice dated 21/07/2020. The notice demands to issue a clearance certificate relating to the vehicle in question bearing registration number KL-14 R 3684 within 15 days of receipt of notice and also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/-
8. In para 7 of version Opposite Party admits receipt of lawyer notice Ext A50. It is dated 21/07/2020. The last payment was on 12/07/2019. For one year no notice of demand nor reply after Ext A5. Explanation for sending reply is that complainant was informed the actual position of account and he was asked to settle the claim as per agreed terms. The explanation is far from satisfactory. Even if it is believed there is no evidence to show that Opposite Party sent any notice of demand or even demand orally if any amount allegedly due as overdue instalments. This shows that no amount is actually due to the Opposite Party or that entire amount as per agreement terms is cleared. The Opposite Party claims amount by way of written version without sending any reply to the notice or sending any written notice of documents prior to filing complaint.
9. Further no oral evidence adduced by Opposite Party suggestion is made to Pw1 that complaint filed since Opposite Party threatened saying that instalments are overdue which is denied by Pw1. No such case for Opposite Party in the written version. Complainant produced repayment details. Very production of repayment detail will not absolve the Opposite Party from providing the documents. It is not proved as per mandate of law by examing the person who prepared or issued the same
10. In view of the above and the records available on the file, it is evident that the complainant even after repayment of loan amount, the opponent finance company did not issue no objection certificate and failed to return the documents. He further submitted that inspite of legal notice issued to the opponent finance company the said no due certificate and vehicle documents are not returned by Opposite Party due to which he had to sustain financial loss and he could not use the vehicle by renwing permits.
11. The point which arise for our consideration is whether there is any deficincy in service proved against the Opposite Party. The ground on the basis of which the complainant has alleged the Opposite Party to commit deficiency in service non issue of certificate for re-issue of permit to the vehicle in dispute raised by the Opposite Party is that the complainant is liable addition to vehicle loan, further sum of overdue charges and overdue instalments is due.
12. But based on Ext A2 to 50 we find that the complainant has repaid the entire amount of loan with interest and other charges. Hence it is incumbent on the part of Opposite Party to issue no due certificate. In view of the aforesaid facts and observant we hold that opponent finance company is liable for deficiency in service.
13. The complainant claimed Rs. 50,000/- considering the circumstances and nature of the case a sum of Rs. 25,000/- found reasonable and accordingly for reasons stated above complainant is entitled to get. No due certificate/ loan clearance certificate without any further payment.
In the result complaint is partly allowed directing the Opposite Party to issue loan clearance certificate covered by agreement dated 30/06/2015for the vehicle No: KL – 14 R 3684 and pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and negligence and Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Chart list
A2 to A49 Payment Receipts
A50 – Registered notice
A51 & 52 – Postal Acknowledgment
B1- Hire purchase agreement.
Witness Examined
Pw1- Vijayan.C.K
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
