The Corporation had no legal authority to write the communication preventing the truck from being plied, resulting in a loss for the complainant.

Mr. Justice M.R. Agnihotri, President— Haryana Financial Corporation has come up in appeal against the order dated 26th July, 1994 passed by learned District Forum. Hisar, whereby complaint of cue Sunil Kumar Bansal alleging deficiency in service has been allowed.

2. According to the complainant he got a Turbo Telco Truck for being plied throughout the country with a National Permit. For the purchase of this truck he applied for the loan to the Haryana Financial Corporation, which was duly sanctioned, but the Corporation released only a sum of Rs. 3,16,800/- as against Rs. 3,93,000/-. Later on even though the certificate of the fitness of the truck was valid upto 3rd October, 1994 and the Registering Authority, Fatehabad extended the validity of registration upto 9th September, 1995, yet due to some communication written by the appellant-Haryana Financial Corporation, the truck was not allowed to be plied. As the truck remained idle, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 40,000/- per month, which was the only source of livelihood of the complainant. On he other hand, Haryana Financial Corporation pleaded that the letter in question was written to the Regional Transport Authority, Hisar for not extending the permit as it could be issued only after no objection certificate' was to be obtained from the Corporation. So faras issuance of the no objection certificate' was concerned, the Haryana Financial Corporation pleaded that the same was not issued as the complainant was committing defaults in paying instalments from March, 1994- The learned District Forum after examining the evidence produced by the parties found the factual position as alleged by the complainant to be correct. Consequently, the complaint was allowed and the complainant has been held entitled to the remission of monthly instalment amount by way of compensation to me complainant. Direction was issued to the Corporation to calculate the amount and to adjust the same in the loan amount of the complainant.

3. In the appeal before us, learned Counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that even if the appellant-Haryana Financial Corporation had written the letter to the Regional Transport Authority tor not extending the National Permit, yet the complainant should have utilised the truck by running it within the State. It has also been argued mat the letter written by the Haryana Financial Corporation was not binding on Regional Transport Authority. On the other hand, Mr. Suman Jain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has pleaded that when the National Permit of the truck was not extended, the truck remained idle as the complainant could not take the risk of being prosecuted by the Authorities. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the question is not whether the letter written by the Haryana Financial Corporation was binding on Regional Transport Authority or not or whether the complainant could ply the truck within the State or outside. The real point for determination is, whether the appellant-Haryana Financial Corporation had any authority in law to write such a communication or not and as a result of such communication having been written, whether the complainant had actually suffered the loss or not. To both the questions, the answer is obviously in favour of me complainant. Under the Motor Vehicles Act no such communication could be addressed by the Haryana Financial Corporation to the Regional Transport Authority for not extending the National Permit, nor could the Regional Transport Authority-respondent No. 2 refuse to do so. But the fact remains that it had actually been done and the complainant had actually suffered the loss as rightly assessed by the learned District Forum. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the appeal and there being no legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Forum the impugned order is upheld. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed w