BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No.408 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.78/2017., DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Having the Regd. Office, at 3rd Floor, Mukambakai ComplexbNo.4, Desika Road, Maylapor, Chennai-600 001.

Rep. by its Manager.

2. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch Manager, Having its Branch office at H.No.12-6-272/6/-12

2nd floor, above Music World, VC Plaza, Shivalayam Road, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

...Appellants/ Opposite Parties And:

Manawar Mehedi Shaik S/o. Shaik Ali Miya, Musilm, aged about 35 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. H.No.3-193, Flat No.201, Asha Residency, Narasimha Reddy Nagarm, Near Raghvendra Theatre, Malkajigiri, R.R.District.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite Parties: Sri Chandrakanth Chavan Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Sri M.N. Ravikanth Acharya QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V. SESHU BABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

THURSDAY, THE 25th DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR **********

ORDER: (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHU BABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL) 01. This appeal is filed by the appellants/opposite parties U/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 aggrieved by the order dated 17.05.2019 in CC NO.78/2017 by the DCDRC Ranga Reddy, wherein opposite parties jointly and severally were directed to issue No Objection Certificate in respect of Tawera Vehicle bearing NO.AP 10 TV 1015 and to issue all relevant documents on further directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- on costs of Rs.10,000/- within 30 days failing which the amounts shall carry interest at 8% p.a. from 28.03.2017 till realization.

02. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant availed loan of Rs.3,78,658/- to purchase Tavera Vehicle bearing No. AP 10 TV 1015 and entered into loan cum hypothecation agreement dated 06.01.2011 with OP.No.2 agreeing to repay the same in 36 EMIs at Rs.13,400/-; that paid the last EMI on 16.03.2013 and totally cleared the loan dues; that on the request of OP.No.2, the complainant introduced five of his friends for vehicle loans and stood has guarantor for them; that out of the five, two cleared the loans in full and other three committed default after paying some installments; that the complainant has shown their respective houses to the opposite party No.2 to facilitate for the recovery of the loans; that opposite party No.2 informed the complainant that the vehicles of the other 3 were seized and sold to realize the dues; that however, insisting the complainant to clear their balance loan amounts without initiating any legal action against them and also not issuing NOC to the complainant though entire loan was cleared by the complainant; that though the vehicle life time tax was going to be expired on 24.01.2016 not heeded the requests of complainant; that legal notice dated

07.02.2017 was received, but in vain; hence, the complaint.

03. Though vakalat was filed on behalf of opposite parties they have not filed written version.

04. Before the commission below the complainant filed evidence affidavit as Pw1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7.

05. The Commission below settled the following points for discussion:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

2. To what relief.

06. Having heard complainant counsel and basing on the material available on record, the Commission below allowed the complaint as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same the Opposite Parties filed the present appeal with the following grounds.

 The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

 The commission below failed to observe that the complainant being the guarantor to the other three borrowers is liable to clear their dues.

 The Commission below failed to observe that ARB No.1730/2012 and 79/2017 were passed against the complainant by the arbitr