BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA No. 193 OF 2014 AGAINST CC No.441 OF 2012

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD

     Between :

M/s. Shrim City Union Finance Limited,

H.No.7-1-615, 205, IInd Floor,

Rahamat Complex, Ameerpet,

Hyderabad – 500016

Rep. by it’s Branch Manager.                             ….Appellant / Opposite Party

AND

Mr. Ch.Venkata Krishna Reddy,

S/o. Sri Ch. Parasuram Reddy,

Aged about 46 years, Occ: Self Employee,

R/o. H.No.9-6-47, Anjaiah Nagar,

Bowenpally,

Secunderabad – 500009.                                   ....Respondent / Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant / Opposite Party:  M/s. K.R.R. Associates

Counsel for the Respondent / Complainant: M/s. Vemuri Srinivas & Associates

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla        …      President

&

Sri Patil Vithal Rao  …                  Member

,

Wednesday the Eleventh day of October

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).

                                                         ***

This Appeal arises from the order dated 19.02.2014 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Hyderabad [for brevity, ‘the District Forum’] in C.C. No. 441/2012.  The said case was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(for short, ‘the Act’) by the Complainant against the Opposite Party Finance Company seeking issue of No Objection Certificate in respect of TOYOTA QUALIS, AP10V1030 to get it registered on his name from the RTA concerned after clearing the hypothecation clause and compensation with costs for the mental agony, hardship and inconvenience suffered by him. 

2.         The Complainant had set up the claim before the District Forum on the grounds, in brief, that he availed a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- from the Opposite Party Finance Company to purchase the above noted vehicle with equal monthly installments of Rs.13,422/- for a period of 36 months and issued post dated cheques by executing Hire Purchase Agreement.  The first installment was deducted by the Opposite Party Finance Company at the time of disbursement of the loan itself.  As per the Complainant, there was an agreement between the parties to the effect that he should pay the EMI to the Opposite Party Finance Company in cash and take back the cheque for the said month and that accordingly he had cleared all the installments but despite said fact the Company did not give him NOC to get deleted the hypothecation clause at the time of registration of the vehicle, on his name by the RTA concerned, on the premise that the Complainant was still due of an amount of Rs.26,995/-.  By terming this attitude of the Opposite Party Finance Company as unfair trade practice amounting to deficiency in service filed the complaint after issuing a Legal Notice to the Company seeking the reliefs as noted in Para no.1 supra. 
3.                The Opposite Party Finance Company resisted the claim by way of filing a written version before the District Forum on the grounds, interalia, that the Complainant had committed default in repayment of the loan amount in terms of the Hire Purchase

Agreement and that as such penal charges and penal interest were claimed apar