Back
2008 (3) CPR 150
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Mrs. Jasbir Kapoor, Member
Centurian Bank of Punjab —Appellant
versus
Som Chand Katia —Respondent
First Appeal No. 1425 of 2007
Decided on 25.4.2008
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Delay of 27 days in issuance of no objection certificate by bank in respect of car got financed by complainant after payment of entire outstanding of loan constitutes deficiency in service on part of Bank entitling complainant to compensation.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 12 and 17—Deficiency in banking service—Delay of 27 days in issuance of no objection certificate after deposit of outstanding amount of loan in respect of vehicle of complainant—District Forum allowed complaint awarding compensation of Rs. 13,500/- with complaint claimed to have paid to buyer of car @ Rs. 500/- per day for delay in providing NOC to him with interest—Appeal—No explanation with Bank for delay of 27 days in issuing NOC—No reason to interfere with impugned order. (Paras 10 to 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
S.N. Aggarwal, President—Misc. Application for condonation of delay.This appeal was filed with delay of 7 days. An application for condonation of delay was filed along with the appeal. Reasons have been given in this application which caused the delay in filing the appeal. This application is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons stated in the application, we are satisfied that delay is not intentional and is liable to be condoned. Accordingly the application for condonation of delay is allowed with all just exceptions and delay of 7 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Main Case:
Som Chand Katia, respondent herein had purchased a car bearing Registration No. PB-03K/8080 after availing loan from the appellants. An entry was made in the Registration Certificate with regard to the hire-purchase agreement entered by the respondent with the appellants. After the payment of entire loan by the respondent, No Objection Certificate (in short the ‘NOC’) was required to be issued by the appellants before the vehicle could be sold by him. In the month of April, 2007, the respondent wanted to sell the vehicle. Therefore, he deposited the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,86,546.64 in the loan account of the appellants on 9.4.2007 and requested the appellants to issue the NOC for getting the hire-purchase agreement entry deleted from the Registration Certificate. The appellants kept the matter pending. The respondent visited the office of the appellants for a number of times but in vain.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent sold the car to one Avtar Singh on 13.4.2007. The purchaser demanded the NOC but it was not available with the respondent. The matter was settled by Pawan Kumar, Broker by which the respondent was bound to hand over the NOC to the purchaser upto 23.4.2007 failing which he was liable to make the payment of Rs. 500 per day to the purchaser. The respondent started making requests to the appellants to issue NOC but it was not issued by them inspite of repeated visits and requests, rather the appellants debited an amount of Rs. 12,050/- in the Saving Bank Account No. 3351 of the respondent on 16.4.2007.
3. It was further pleaded that on 14.5.2007, the respondent wrote a letter to the appellants for the refund of 12,050/- with interest @ 12.5% and for reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 500/- per day. The appellants issued the NOC dated 18.5.2007 which was handed over to the respondent on 20.5.2007. As a result, the respondent suffered the penalty for 27 days suffering the loss to the tune of Rs. 13,500/-. This amount was also demanded by the respondent from the appellants with interest @ 12.5%. The appellants failed to oblige the respondent on which he filed a complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathidna (in short the ‘District Forum’).
4. The appellants filed the written statement. Preliminary objections were pleaded and the case was also contested on merits. It was also pleaded that Civil Suit for rendition of accounts was maintainable and not the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. It was denied if the amount of
Rs. 1,86,546.64 was paid by the respondent in full and final settlement of the account. At that time a sum of Rs. 3,505/- was still outstanding against him due to which NOC was not issued to the respondent. Hence dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The respondent tendered in evidence his own affidavits, Ex.C-1 and C-8, affidavit of Pawan Kumar, Ex.C-2 and documents Ex.C-3 to C-7 and C-9. On the other hand, the appellants produced the affidavit of Sh. Harjit Singh, Collection Manager, as, Ex. R-1 and documents Ex.R-2 and R-3.
6. On the basis of these pleadings and the documents, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs. 1,000 and directed the appellants to make the payment of interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 12,050 from 16.4.2007 till 18.7.2007 and Rs. 13,500 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 20.5.2007 onwards.
7. Hence the appeal.
8. The learned
