Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President and Mr. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member
INDUSIND BANK - Appellant
Versus
RUPINDERJIT KAUR - Respondent
First Appeal No. 140 of 2017
Decided on : 01-06-2017
Sh. Parminder Singh, Advocate, for the Appellants; None, for the Respondents
The central legal point established is the obligation of the opposite parties to issue the NOC and the importance of proper evidence in consumer protection cases.
Headnote:
Consumer Complaint - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 - 19.01.2017 - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, particularly Section 12, and the issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' by the opposite parties. The court highlighted the complainant's right as a consumer and the obligation of the opposite parties to issue the NOC, emphasizing the deficiency in service by the opposite parties.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant availed a loan for a truck, cleared her dues, and applied for a fresh loan. Disputes arose regarding the outstanding amount, issuance of NOC, and alleged harassment by the opposite parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the opposite parties failed to issue a demand notice for default in the loan account and manipulated evidence. The court also noted discrepancies in the NOC issued by the opposite parties, leading to a finding of deficiency in service.
Issues: Dispute over outstanding loan amount, issuance of NOC, and alleged harassment by the opposite parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the complainant's rights as a consumer and the obligation of the opposite parties to issue the NOC. The court also highlighted the importance of proper evidence and the duty of the opposite parties to issue demand notices for defaults.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the opposite parties were directed to deposit the remaining amount in the District Forum as per the directions in the impugned order.
ORDER
Harcharan Singh Guram, Member. - The appellants/opposite parties No. 1 & 2 (hereinafter referred to as 'opposite parties') have filed the present appeal against the order dated 19.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali (hereinafter referred to as 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 366 dated 23.07.2015, vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'complainant') was allowed on the ground that the opposite parties issued 'No Objection Certificate' to the complainant in lieu of the loan availed by her on 16.08.2016 and was awarded compensation of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to be paid by the opposite parties and were further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as costs of litigation. The opposite parties were further directed to comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the certified copy of the order failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the awarded amount till its realization.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Rupinderjit Kaur wife of Sh. Harpal Singh filed her complaint against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 through her Special Power of Attorney holder Sh. Harpal Singh. She purchased a Truck of Ashok Leyland 2516 Model bearing Registration No. PB-12-J-1407 by availing a loan facility from the opposite parties for a period of three years and all her dues regarding that loan were cleared by her. Thereafter, she applied for a fresh loan with the opposite parties for Rs. 5,25,000/- which was sanctioned on 28.04.2011. The total amount including interest and all other charges were required to be paid by her to the extent of Rs. 6,51,472/-. She was required to pay monthly instalment of Rs. 18,650/- for a period of three years i.e. from 28.04.2011 to 21.03.2014 as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the agreement. She had deposited a sum of Rs. 6,42,375/- till 12.04.2014. A sum of Rs. 1,051/- was deducted from her account on 30.06.2016. The opposite parties after receipt of the above loan amount presented a cheque of Rs. 42,228/- on 10.07.2014 to be withdrawn from her account. The said cheque presented by the opposite parties was not honored. It was averred that only an amount of Rs. 8,000/- was outstanding in her loan account. She along-with her husband/Attorney holder requested the opposite parties to issue her NOC after taking the balance amount of Rs. 8,000/- from her. The Bank officials informed her to deposit a sum of Rs. 42,228/- instead of Rs. 8,000/- then only they would issue her the NOC. In order to clarify her position, she paid visits to the offices of the opposite parties on 19.07.2014 along-with her Guarantor Gurmej Singh and enquired into the matter. The matter was thoroughly discussed with Sh. Amarbir Singh then Branch Manager of the opposite parties who also advised them to deposit a sum of Rs. 42,228/-. However, she informed the Bank that she was not in position to pay the amount of Rs. 42,228/-. Thereafter, a compromise was effected between her and the Branch Manager in the presence of Special Power of Attorney, Sh. Harpal Singh that if she would deposit an amount of Rs. 20,000/- the opposite parties would issue her NOC within 10 days. On the assurance of the opposite parties, an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was deposited with the opposite parties on 19.07.2014. She was promised by the said Branch Manager that the NOC would be issued to her in a couple of days. She frequently paid visits to the opposite parties' office and enquired about the issuance of NOC but the concerned Branch Manager namely Amarbir Singh avoided them to meet on one pretext or the other. No satisfactory reply was given to her. Thereafter, she was advised to meet one Mr. Murti who was a senior official. When she met Mr. Maruti who after checking the account on internet again a
