J.Jayaram, Member (J) - (1.) THIS appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore in C.C. 184/2011, dated 22.5.2013, allowing the complaint. The case of the complainant is that, he availed a loan from the opposite party for purchase of a Washing Machine on 29.1.2010 for Rs. 19,500, and even after fully discharging the loan, the opposite party projected his loan account in CIBIL as pending and that he had yet to pay Rs. 17,875 and that he is a defaulter, and did not issue NOC in time and later, when the NOC was issued, he found his name wrongly mentioned in the NOC. Meanwhile, he had made arrangements to purchase a SWIFT DEZIRE Car on loan, fixing the cost, but after obtaining the NOC belatedly, when he approached the car dealer, he came to know that in the meanwhile there was an escalation of price of the car by Rs. 31,000 and the enhancement of price is due to the delay in issuing NOC in correct name in time by the opposite party, and the delay in issuing the fresh NOC in correct name, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint, praying for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs. 31,000 being the difference of enhanced amount in the cost of the car, and to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lac as compensation for mental agony, etc. and to pay costs of Rs. 5,000.
(2.) ACCORDING to the opposite party, in the NOC issued by them, there was an error in the name of the complainant which was rectified later at the instance of the complainant; but the complainant did not come and collect the NOC and they did not inform CIBIL that the complainant was a defaulter and that his dues are still pending, and that they are not responsible for the escalation of the cost of the car and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.
(3.) THE contention of the appellant/opposite party would be that they kept the corrected NOC/fresh NOC ready to be issued to the complainant; but the complainant did not come and collect the NOC; and further that they did not intimate to CIBIL that the complainant was a defaulter and some dues were pending; and that there was no escalation of price of the car which the complainant purchased during the relevant period.;