State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Sanila P.S on 6 August, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.555/2014 JUDGMENT DATED 06/08/2015 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.111/2014 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta dated, 30/09/2014) PRESENT: SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER APPELLANT: Branch Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Limited, College Road, Pathanamthitta-689 645 - Rep: by the Company's Power of Attorney Holder, Shihabudeen, Shriram City Union Finance Limited, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Narayan.R) Vs RESPONDENTS: Sanila.P.S., Pathalil Veedu, Puthusserimala P.O., Ranni, Pathanamthitta-689 672. The Branch Manager, Aiswarya Motors, 219, Parayil Building, Ground Floor, College Road, Pathanamthitta-689 645. JUDGMENT
SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER Appellant is the 2nd opposite party in C.C.No.111/14 on the file of CDRF, Pathanamthitta who preferred this appeal. The 1st respondent is the complainant and the 2nd respondent is the 1st opposite party.
2. In brief the complainant purchased a two wheeler from the 1st opposite party availing a loan from the 2nd opposite party on hire purchase agreement. The entire loan amount was remitted as on 5/5/2014 and for cancellation of the hypothecation the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had not issued the No Objection Certificate which resulted in mental agony to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for No Objection Certificate and also for compensation of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5000/- as cost.
3. The 1st opposite party remained ex-parte. The 2nd opposite party admitted the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement with the complainant. The remittance of loan amount was admitted by the 2nd opposite party and the last EMI was on 12/5/2014. In order to issue the No Objection Certificate the complainant had to produce the copy of the RC Book which is highly essential. The original RC Book is normally sent by the RTO directly to the registered owner of the vehicle and not to the financial institution. On termination of loan agreement the financial institution issues NOC. It is contended that the RC Book is with the complainant and on production of the copy of the RC Book the 2nd opposite party is ready to issue NOC. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of 2nd opposite party.
4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and documents were marked as Exbts. A1 and A2. No oral evidence or documents produced on the part of opposite party. There is no laches on the part of 2nd opposite party regarding the issuance of No Objection Certificate. The respondent appeared in person and requested for legal assistance, Adv. N.G. Mahesh was appointed as amicuscurea and argued the case in detail.
5. Heard in detail and had gone through the documents. We find that the complainant availed loan on hire purchase agreement and remitted the entire amount. On request for NOC the respondent was asked to bring the RC Book for issuance of No Objection Certificate. The dispute arose in this case is that the respondent alleged that the original R.C is with the 2nd opposite party and requested for the No Objection Certificate. According to the appellant the RC Book would be issued from the Registration Office to the registered owner directly with the hypothecation endorsement and not to the financier. Hence the original RC book is with the respondent/complainant. In the instant case, we find that there is no dispute between the parties regarding the payment of the loan amount and remitted the entire loan amount. Even after remittance of the entire loan amount the respondent could have produced the RC Book. She need not conceal the fact that she is not in possession of the R.C Book as she is the beneficiary on removal of hypothecation. Hence there arise the remote chance for non-production of the R.C. Book by the respondent. However in the instant case the probability of keeping the R.C. Book original is vested with the 2nd opposite party. However, we are of the considered view that the appellant/2nd opposite party is to issue the No Objection Certificate based on the copy of R.C. Book and the respondent can seek for a duplicate R.C. Book from the Transport authorities complying the formalities.
In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below. The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of this order.
The office is directed to send a copy of this order with LCR to the Forum Below.
A. RADHA : MEMBER
K. CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SANTHAMMA THOMAS : MEMBER
Sa.
KERALA STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.555/2014
JUDGMENT DATED 06/08/2015
Sa.