IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) No Objection Certificate (NOC) – A consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service regarding loan repayment (such as excess deduction of installments) is not maintainable if the complainant has already voluntarily closed the loan account and accepted a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) in full satisfaction from the financier prior to filing the complaint.
(2) Burden of Proof lies on the Complainant – When a complainant alleges a specific mode of payment (e.g., post-dated cheques) and the Opposite Party categorically denies this, asserting a different mode (e.g., ECS), the burden lies on the complainant to controvert the Opposite Party’s plea with cogent evidence. Failure to do so results in the failure to prove deficiency in service.

ORDER :

Sunita Yadav, President.—The appellant/complainant has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal-1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.129/2015 whereby complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant/appellant had obtained loan facility from the Opposite Party No.1-finance company to purchase a motorcycle for which he had given 35 cheques of Bank of Maharashtra, the Opposite Party No.2 to the Opposite Party No.1 towards repayment of loan @ Rs.1445/- monthly installment. It is alleged by the complainant that the Opposite Party No.1-finance company send the cheques for two months in one month i.e. on 08.11.2013 and 09.11.2013 for clearance in the complainant’s bank account with the Opposite Party No.2-bank. The Opposite Party No.2-bank cleared those cheques and total amount of Rs.2,890/- was credited in the bank account of the Opposite Party No.1-finance company. It is alleged by the complainant that instead of one month’s installment, the employees of the Opposite Party No.1-finance company illegally recovered two monthly installments in one month which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.

3. The Opposite Party No.1-finance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant signed the loan agreement at the time of getting loan. He was sanctioned loan for a sum of Rs.52,020/- which was to be repaid in 36 EMIs of Rs.1445/-. The complainant chose mode of repayment of loan through ECS (Electronic Clearing System). It is denied that they had obtained 35 cheques from the complainant. As per condition of loan agreement the installment was to be paid through ECS but the installment dated 08.11.2013 was not cleared through ECS to which the opposite party has filed document R-7. The complainant himself was defaulter and did not make payment since 10.07.2014. After giving recall notice by the opposite party the complainant after expiry of loan agreement deposited outstanding amount of Rs.5,772/- after one month and thereafter closing the loan account, NOC was given to him. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party No.1. It was thus prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The Opposite Party No.2-bank despite service of notice remained absent and were proceeded ex-parte.

5. The District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant failed to prove allegations made in the complaint.

6. Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is perverse and against the settled principles of law. It is further argued that the District Commission failed to consider that the Opposite Party No.1-finance company illegally recovered one monthly installment of repayment of loan in excess i.e. recovered two monthly installments in one month. The District Commission failed to consider that there has been deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. He therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order and praying for award of compensation and costs.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1/respondent No.1-finance argued that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law as the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on part of opposite parties.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. It is not in dispute that the complainant has obtained loan from the Opposite Party No.1-finance company to purchase motorcycle and he was bound to pay 36 installments of Rs.1,445/- each per month. It is submitted by the complainant that he had given 35 cheques to the Opposite Party No.1-finance company for the same. It is alleged by the complainant tha