DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.
Present: Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President.
Sri Lingaraj Khadanga,Member.
C.C.No.340/2008
Sri Pratap Chandra Hui, 37 Years,
S/o. Gopal Chandra Hui,
At/P.O. Anarpal,
Dist.Bhadrak.
At Present. 1158, Mahanadi Vihar,
P.S./Dist. Bhadrak. ……..Complainant.
…..Vrs…….
1. Branch Manager, Tata Motor Ltd.,
Bermunda, Bhubaneswar,
Dist. Khurda.
2. In-charge of Extention/Collection Counter of Tata Motors Ltd.,
At. M/s. Pal Automobiles,
Link Road,
Dist. Cuttack. ………..Opp.Parties.
JUDGMENT DT.10.12.09
Sri Manoranjan Hazra,President
Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties., the present complaint is filed.
1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that on 1.3.2004 he purchased one truck bearing model no.SE-1613,Regd. No.OR-05-S-0927 for Rs.7,07,049/- being financed by Opposite Party No.1 by entering into a hire purchase Agreement bearing No.814081 dt.29.2.04 and he was to repay the loan amount by 35 instalments i.e. the first instalment was fixed at Rs.21,300/- and rest 34 @ Rs.21,1500/-. The last instalment was paid by the complainant on 2.1.07 thereby he repaid the entire loan amount. While the matter stood thus, as the complainant was in urgent need of money, intended to sale away the vehicle so he approached Opposite Party No.1 on 3.1.08 for grant of No Due Certificate but on some plea or other, the same was not issued to the complainant. Finally on 19.8.08 when the complainant went for the same, the Opposite Party No.1 intimated that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is still due towards the instalment amount and unless the same is paid, the No Due Certificate can not be issued. Thereafter on 20.8.08, the complainant issued one registered letter to the Opposite Party No.1 asking for the No Due Certificate but still then the same was not issued. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to issue No Due Certificate and also claimed compensation for mental agony etc.
2. Opposite Party No.2 inspite of receipt of notice from this Forum did not appear. So Opposite Party No.2 has been set exparte.
3. Opposite Party No.1 filed its version alleging interalia that the present complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer and also liable for dismissal as no cause of action arose for filing this case. While admitting the fact of grant of loan to the complainant for purchase of the truck in question, according to Opposite Party No.1 no deficiency in service have been committed by it because the complainant was still liable to pay Rs.42,844/- against the said loan account for which no NOC have been granted as such prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. From the pleadings of the parties, as well as from the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the complainant, it is seen from Annex-2 series that till 2.1.07, the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.74,040/-. No doubt the said Annexure have been challenged by the Opposite Party No.1 in para-6 of its version. But no contrary documentary evidence to that effect have been produced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1. On the other hand it is the plea of the Opposite Party No.1 that as on January,2009 the complainant was still to pay a sum of Rs.42,844/- and for non-payment of the said amount NOC have not been granted to the complainant. The said amount have been disclosed in Annex-B. We are unable to accept the correctness of Annex-B because according to the complainant he made a representation under Annex-3 for grant of NOC which was to sent to Opposite Party No.1 by registered post with A.D. No doubt the Opposite Party No.1 have denied to have received Annex-3 but law is well settled that once a letter is sent by Registered Post with A.D., even if the Acknowledgement receipt is not returned back to the sender still then it will be deemed that the addressee have received the letter. Therefore we hold that Aannex-3 have been duly received by the Opposite Party No.1. The reason best known to Opposite Party No.1 as to why he did not give any reply to Annex-3 to the complainant asking him that no NOC can be granted to him unless and until the arrear amount of Rs.42,844/- is paid. That being so we are constrained to hold that the complainant is not in arrear of Rs.42,844/- against his loan account. Therefore while allowing the complaint petition; we hold that the Opposite Party No.1 has committed deficiency in service by not granting the NOC inspite of clearance of the entire loan amount by the complainant. Accordingly we direct the Opposite Party No.1 to grant NOC to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt this order and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- within the said period for causing deficiency in service.
Judgment pronounced in the open Forum on this the 10th day of December,2009 under the seal and signature of this Forum.
Member President