ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This Revision Petition arises from the order passes by the State Commission dismissing the appeal filed by the Petitioner before us.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had taken a loan for purchase of a truck in 1981 repayment of which was to be made in 50 equal monthly instalments. These was irregularity in these payments, the Bank filed a civil suit to recover the outstanding amount. As per requirement, an N.O.C. has to be given by the Bank at the time of renewal of route permit for the truck, when the complainant requested for NOC to be issued in February, 1922, it was not done till the complaint was filed in November, 1992 and NOC was issued on 17.11.92. The Complainant sought damages for non-issue of NOC for the period February, 1992 to November, 1992. The District Forum after hearing both the parties, found the Petitioner deficient in rendering services and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 50,000/- as damages within 30 days of the order, not to charge any interest on the loan amount for the period i.e. 26.2.92 to 17.11.92 and awarded cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed, hence this Petition.
3. It was argued by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the complainant was a defaulter in its repayment; under these circumstances how could they be issuing NOC? Both the lower courts erred in this regard hence the order of both the lower forums be set aside. On the other hand, it was argued by the Id. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant that there is nothing wrong with the order of the lower forums. The Bank was obliged to issue NOC as it had been doing in earlier years of the loan. The Bank just slept over its request without sufficient reason for about 9 months causing loss to the Complainant, hence the damages awarded are in order.
4. We have seen the material on record and heard the arguments. Undisputed facts are that the complainant had taken a loan for purchase of truck starting 1.12.81. Loan with interest was to be repaid in 50 monthly instalments. This period expired in January, 1986 whereas the outstandings continued till 1992. In the meantime two other events are important to note. Firstly that the Bank had moved civil court for recovery of the amount and secondly the truck had been sold to a third party without consulting/knowledge of the bank without fully clearing the loan amount. The conduct of the complainant speaks for itself. Outstanding stretched for six years. Bank cannot be faulted for non-issue of NOC when such a huge amount was outstanding. It is the complainant who was a defaulter and could not claim the right to N.O.C. He could not get the cake and eat it too. To continue to make money by plying the truck (which he had in any case sold off) and yet not paying the instalments, takes away his right of any help, goodwill from the Bank. Both the lower forums, in our view, did not appreciate the import of non-paying of instalments. This order cannot be sustained. We find no deficiency in service rendered by the Bank. The Petitioner cannot be faulted for his action. In spite of these circumstances, if they still renewed it after a lapse of 9 months the complainant should consider themselves fortunate and lucky. The order of both the lower forums are set aside. Petition is allowed. No order on costs.