BAJAJ AUTO FINANCE LTD Vs. PAWAN KUMAR BANSAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 4. 10. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa whereby while accepting the complaint of the respondent-complainant direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 to pay Rs. 5,000 as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment caused to the complainant besides costs of the proceedings of Rs. 2,200.

(2.) PUT shortly, the facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased the motorcycle with the financial help from the opposite party No. 2, a subsidiary of the opposite party No. 3 from the opposite party No. 1 in the year 2004. Thereafter, the said vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority at Hisar which allotted him registration No. HR-44a/2014. It is the case of the complainant that he had paid the entire loan amount to the opposite party No. 2 by means of instalments. Despite the payment of the loan amount made, the opposite party No. 2 further demanded a sum of Rs. 1,393 as penalty charges which amount was also deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 5410007431 dated 7. 7. 2006 issued by the opposite party No. 2. Thereafter, he demanded 'no Dues Certificate' from the opposite party No. 2 but it was denied to him without any justification. The complainant sent a registered notice to the opposite party No. 1 but without any result. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 further demanded Rs. 697 which was also deposited by the complainant vide receipt No. 5410007684 dated 1. 11. 2006 but the opposite parties failed to issue the 'no Dues Certificate' to him. Forced by these circumstances the present complaint was filed. The complaint was contested by the opposite parties. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 3 filed their joint written statement wherein it was pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 is a authorised dealer of the opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 3 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. They averred that the dispute with regard to the payment of the loan amount to the opposite party No. 2 is between the loanee and financier and the opposite party No. 3 had no connection with the finance activities and accordingly it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal. The opposite party No. 2 in its separate written statement stated that the complainant had made the last payment of the loan amount on 1. 11. 2006 and after verifying the account, N. O. C. was issued to him. It was further stated that the delay occurred in issuance of the NOC to the complainant because it was to be received from the Head Office at Pune and thereafter intimation was given to the complainant to collect the same but he himself did not come forward to receive the same and for that reason the complaint deserved to be rejected. Taking into account the respective stands of the parties and evidence adduced on record the District Forum returned a firm finding that the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 had withheld the issuance of 'no Dues Certificate' without any justified reasons. It was also concluded that after the filing of the complaint they had issued incomplete 'no Dues Certificate' with the result that under the directions of the District Forum "no Dues Certificate" Ex. R-3 containing full particulars was issued on 30. 5. 2007 and the same was received by the complainant on 15. 6. 2007. Consequently, taking into account the period of delay, harassment and humiliation caused to the complainant the above stated compensation and cost was awarded as per order dated 4. 10. 2007. It is against this order the present appeal has been filed by the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel representing the appellant-opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 has been heard at length.