BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.

F.A. No.300/2022 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.No.12/2019 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGAREDDY AT L.B. NAGAR Between:

Mr. Mohammed Rafeeq, S/o. G. Hassan Saheb, R/o.102/E, GPRA Campus Indiranagar, Gachibowli, Sherilingampally, Rangareddy District, Telangana.

….Appellant/Complainant And

1. The Vice President, Customers Branch, O/o. Tata Motor Finance Ltd., GBR Towers, 3^rd Floor, 2-42/128, Chaitanyapuri, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad.

2. The Controlling Authority, Tata Motor Finance Ltd., I-Think Techno Campus Building-A, 2^nd Floor, Pokhran Road 2, Thane West-400601.

…Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. R. Yogender Sigh Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties : M/s. Saini Keshava Rao QUORUM: HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE- MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

THURSDAY, THE TWENTYH SECOND DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ORDER: (PERHON’BLE SMT. R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER, NON-JUDICIAL)

1. This appeal is filed U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, Complainant being aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the District Consumer Commission, Rangareddy at L.B. Nagar, vide order 07.10.2021 in CC No.12/2019.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are described as complainant and opposite party as arrayed in the complaint.

The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a vehicle, TATA Sedan from the Opposite Parties bearing No.TS 07 UA 7393 and also availed finance for the same from the Opposite Parties organization. The said loan was repayable in 36 equal instalment of Rs.13,355/- per month which included the insurance amount of Rs.1,388/-. That the Complainant had regularly paid the EMI amount and cleared the loan by 02.08.2018. that after clearing the loan he approached the Opposite Parties to issue a No Objection Certificate. But, however the Opposite Parties refused to issue a NOC on the ground that the Complainant is still due a sum of Rs.19,313/-without giving any explanation and nature of such dues. As such the Complainant had submitted a letter on 25.10.2018 requesting to close his loan account bearing No.5001844061. But, the Opposite Parties failed to respond nor closed the account. As such, he is facing problem before the RTA authorities as well as the third parties to whom he intends to sell the vehicle. As such, he got issued a legal notice on 09.11.2018 the same was replied by the Opposite Parties on 22.11.2018 stating that the complainant is still due a sum of Rs.19,739.61 paisa without assigning any reasons. That this act of non-issuing the NOC by Opposite Parties despite the closure of the loan amounts to deficiency of service, as such the complaint was filed before the District Commission.

The Opposite Parties filed their written version while admitting the availing of the loan by the Complainant and the repayment schedule, but however opposed the complaint on the ground that the Complainant is still due an amount of Rs.13,103/- pertaining to miscellaneous/incidental charges along with interest accrued thereon and unless the said amounts are cleared NOC cannot be issued. Further that the Complainant had not sought for any primary relief in the complaint such as, to issue a NOC but only sought for compensation. As such, no complaint can be entertained without seeking any primary relief and only seeking compensation as such, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5. Before the District Commission the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A7. One Mr. RVS Nageshwar Rao, State Head Legal Officer, filed his evidence affidavit on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B5.

The District Commission dismissed the complaint.

6. Aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint by the District Commission, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal on the ground that the District Commission though extracted the observations