At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. VINAY KUMAR
For the Petitioner : Sanjeev Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent : Nemo.
VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
1. This Revision Petition has been filed against the order of Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Appeal No.391 of 2007 with a delay of 50 days. On the first date of hearing itself, it was noted that even in the background of concurrent directions from the two fora below, the NOC has not yet been issued to the Respondent/Complainant. Therefore, the counsel for Revision Petitioner was directed to place the NOC before this Commission. The NOC and the Form No.35 have since been filed and taken on the record of the present proceedings.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. We have perused the records.
3. In explanation of the delay in filing this Revision Petition, the application for condonation mentions two reasons. First, a delay of a few weeks in obtaining the certified copy of the impugned order and thereafter delay of another few weeks in consultation with the counsel in Delhi and approval of the head office in Kolkatta. The delay is condoned.
4. This is a case of vehicle purchased by the Respondent/Complainant which was financed by the Revision Petitioner/Opposite Party. The case of the Complainant is that the last instalment towards repayment was payable on 15.11.2006, but he had already cleared the entire loan by 15.03.2005. Despite, this the 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued by the Magma Leasing Ltd./OP and hence the consumer complaint. The District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to issue the NOC and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with Rs.2000/- towards costs.
5. In limited modification of the above order, the State Commission upheld the directions of the District Forum to make available the NOC and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-. It however reduces the compensation for delay in giving of NOC from Rs.100/- per day to Rs.50/-. While disposing of the appeal, the State Commission has rejected the contentions of the appellant i.e. the present Revision Petitioner that no prejudice has been caused to the Complainant by delay in issuance of NOC as the vehicle had remained in the custody of the Complainant.
6. In the Revision Petition non-issuance of NOC after payment of Rs.2.8 lacs on 15.3.2005 is sought to be explained as being due to an amount of Rs.76,460/- still remaining outstanding against the borrower/Complainant. This is a plea, which was taken by the RP/OP before the District Forum. However, they were not able to give any details in justification of the sum claimed by them. The District Form had noted that they had claimed payments on account of insurance charge, termination charge and pre-closer charge but only an amount of Rs.9,574/- was shown towards insurance charge. It was not accepted by the District Forum as, according to the documents filed before the District Forum, the insurance charge was already included in the EMIs fixed for repayment. We would also like to observe that even during the course of arguments before us, the Revision Petitioner has failed to provide any acceptable details of the amount of Rs.76,460/- claimed by them. Therefore, this argument is held to have failed in entirety and must be rejected.
7. For the reasons noted above, we find no subst
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ance in this Revision Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. The impugned order of the State Commission is confirmed. The NOC and Form 35 filed by the Revision Petitioner in the Registry of this Commission are ordered to be released, under acknowledgment, to the Respondent/Complainant. The Revision Petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as to costs.