BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SOLAN, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 108/2006
Date of presentation: 18.08.2006
Date of decision: 24/12/2009
Ms. Mehul Enterprises, The Mall Solan, Tehsil and District Solan H.P. Through its Proprietor Sh. Bansi Dhar S/o late Sh. Johri lal, R/o Mukh Bhawan, Rajgarh Road Solan, Tehsil and District Solan.
… Complainant
Versus
1. GMAC-TCFC Private Limited, SCO 52-53, Sector 9-D Madhya Marg, Chandigarh U.T. Through its Managing Director/ Director / General Manager.
2. State of Himachal Pradesh,
Through Secretary Transport at Shimla.
3. Registering & Licensing Authority Solan H.P.
…Opposite Parties
For the complainant: Mr. Mohit Sharma, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Exparte
O R D E R:
Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers, that, he is owner of car bearing registration No.HP-14-9394, which was purchased by him, from the OP, hence, got the same registered with the OP No.2, at, Solan. It is averred that he had defrayed the entire loan amount to the OP No.1, yet, the OP No.1, had failed to issue no objection certificate qua the clearance of financed amount. Thereafter, the registered notice was also issued to the Op No.1, which has been received back undelivered with the endorsement that the addressee has left the place. The complainant further proceeded to aver that since the OP No.1 had failed to issue him the no objection certificate qua the clearance of loan amount. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs No.1 & 2, in its written version, to the complaint, admitted the registration of vehicle bearing No.HP-14-9394 with them and further contended that as per form No.21, furnished by the complainant the vehicle has been shown under hire purchase agreement with the OP No.1. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice. However, none appeared on behalf of the OP No.1 despite service through publication in Amar Ujala, hence, was ordered to be proceeded against exparte, on, 27.06.2009.
3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavits, and, documents in support of their respective, contentions.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
5. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP No.1, in not issuing to him, the no objection certificate qua the clearance of loan so obtained by him from it. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, has, placed on record the copy of the statement Annexure C-1, detailing the defrayment of loan instalments before the OP No.1. Annexure C-2, is, the coy of application moved by him to the OP No.1, for issuance of no dues certificate. In addition to this, the complainant has, also, filed his own affidavit corroborating the facts as detailed in the complaint. Since, the allegations, as made in the complaint by the complainant, hence, have remained un-repulsed and un-benumbed, on record by non-adduction of rebuttal evidence on behalf of the OP No.1, as such, the only inference which sprouts, from, the above, is, that the allegations as asserted in the complaint, are, true and correct. Hence, it is held that the act of the OP No.1, in not issuing, the, no objection certificate to him, constitute a deficiency in service, but, is, also, an, unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1.
6. Consequently, we allow this complaint and direct the OP No.1, to issue no objection to the complainant qua clearance of loan amount, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The litigation cost is, quantified at Rs.1,000/- payable by the OP No.1, to the complainant. However, the complaint against OPs No.2 & 3 is dismissed being not maintainable. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, whereas, a certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs through UPC, for compliance. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 24th day of December, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Virender Thakur) (Arun Bala Sharma)
Member Member.