Appellants cannot withhold No Objection Certificate after the loan repayment by the complainant.

1. Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated 5.7.2022 passed by learned District Consumer Forum Solan, in Consumer Complaint No. 51/2019 titled Pawan Sharma v. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd. & Others.

2. Brief facts of Case:
Briefly, the case of the complainant is that complainant had got financed his truck bearing registration No. HP - 62A - 0463 from the opposite parties at their office at Darlaghat and a sum of Rs.1,80,000 was due and payable by the complainant to the opposite parties as on 29.12.2018. The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party No. 3 on 29.12.2018 requesting therein to issue NOC to him with respect to the aforesaid vehicle since he was ready and willing to liquidate the balance loan amount mentioned above on the day when he is calling to collect the NOC. However, to the utter dismay of the complainant, instead of issuing the NOC, the complainant was served with a letter to clear the arrears in respect of vehicle No. HP - 64-0548 since the complainant stood guarantor to one Sh. Anit Chauhan. The complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1,80,000 in the account of the company on 16.2.2019 for clearing all dues of vehicle number HP - 62A - 0463, but the opposite parties did not issue NOC. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 27.2.2019 calling upon the opposite parties to issue NOC but of no avail. Opposite parties not only committed deficiency in service but also committed unfair trade practice.

3. The opposite parties contested the complaint mainly on the ground of maintainability, not approaching the Forum with clean hands and complainant is not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. On merits, the opposite parties have denied each and every averments of the complaint as wrong and incorrect.

4. In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the contents of complaint and refuted the objections put forth by the opposite parties. The complainant also denied having given any guarantee as alleged in the reply.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission partly allowed the complaint of the complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellants / opposite parties have preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

9. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the respondent - complainant had taken loan from the appellants and thereafter he had repaid the entire loan amount. However NOC was withheld due to non - payment of the installments in some other case in which respondent stood guarantor who was defaulter. He further submitted that in terms of S.171 and S.128 of the Indian Contract Act , the lien is with the appellants to recover the said amount. Reliance has been placed upon case titled as Shankar Singh v. Ms. Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. & Others, Latest HLJ 2012(HP) 498. He further submitted that impugned order is bad in law and the appeal of the appellants be allowed.

10. On the other hand, the learned Counsel of the respondent - complainant has submitted that respondent did not stood guarantor in any of the vehicle which was financed by the appellant company and therefore, the appellants cannot retain the NOC in respect of his vehicle when the entire amount has already been repaid. Reliance has been placed upon CWP No.1968 of 2018 titled as Dila Ram v. Canara Bank & Another, decided on 26.9.2019, by Hon'ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. He further submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and appeal of the appellants be di