Car Illegal Withholding of NOC Despite Full Loan Closure

prbabu.1989 · 25 April 2026

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KRISHNA DISTRICT (ANDHRA PRADESH)

Consumer Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Complainant:
Dongala Naresh, S/o Dongala Srinivasarao,
Age: 31 years,
R/o Yadav Bazar, Chillakallu,
Jaggayyapeta Mandal, Krishna District – 521178
Mobile: 9542253222

Versus

Opposite Party:
Branch Manager / Credit Manager
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.
Chillakallu, Jaggayyapeta Mandal,
Krishna District – 521178

1. Jurisdiction

The cause of action arose within Krishna District where the loan was sanctioned, EMIs were paid, and NOC was refused. Hence this Hon’ble Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. Facts of the Case

a) The Complainant availed a vehicle loan in May 2021 from the Opposite Party for purchase of a Maruti Suzuki Ertiga bearing Reg. No. AP39JR9821 under Agreement No. XVFPJHT00004105838.

b) At the time of loan sanction, the Complainant was informed that the second signatory was only a guarantor and would be liable only in case of default by the Complainant.

c) The Complainant has regularly paid all EMIs, including overdue amounts and penal charges, without wilful default. Receipts evidencing payments from 2023–2026 are annexed.

d) The Opposite Party issued a foreclosure/prepayment statement clearly showing:

Principal Outstanding: 0.00
Total Payable: ₹18,735

e) The Complainant paid the said amount (₹18,735), which was accepted by the Opposite Party, thereby fully closing the loan account.

f) Despite full repayment and closure, the Opposite Party has illegally refused to issue NOC, citing alleged default of a guarantor/co-borrower in a separate, unrelated loan.

g) The Opposite Party has failed to provide:

Copy of the signed loan agreement
Any clause linking the Complainant’s loan to third-party liabilities

h) The Complainant repeatedly requested written justification and documents via calls, messages, and notices, but the Opposite Party failed to respond.

i) During the loan tenure, the collection team threatened seizure and auction of the vehicle and is now coercing the Complainant to pay unrelated dues, which is illegal.

3. Cause of Action

The cause of action arose when:

The loan was fully repaid but NOC was withheld
The Opposite Party demanded payment for a third party’s loan
The Complainant was subjected to harassment and coercion

The cause of action is continuing.

4. Deficiency in Service & Unfair Trade Practice

The actions of the Opposite Party amount to:

Deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act
Unfair trade practice
Misrepresentation at the time of loan agreement
Illegal withholding of NOC despite full settlement
Harassment and coercion for recovery of unrelated dues

5. Reliefs Sought

The Complainant prays that this Hon’ble Commission may:

a) Direct the Opposite Party to immediately issue NOC and loan closure documents

b) Award compensation of ₹2,00,000 for mental agony and harassment

c) Award litigation costs of ₹50,000

d) Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of justice

6. List of Documents (Annexures)

Annexure A – Loan details & agreement reference
Annexure B – EMI payment receipts (2023–2026)
Annexure C – Overdue & penalty payment receipts
Annexure D – Foreclosure statement (Principal = 0)
Annexure E – Final payment receipt (₹18,735)
Annexure F – WhatsApp communication screenshots
Annexure G – RBI complaint copy
Annexure H – Proof of NOC refusal / non-response

Place: Krishna District
Date: _______

Complainant
(Signature)

Car Illegal Withholding of NOC Despite Full Loan Closure

prbabu.1989

New member

1. Jurisdiction​

2. Facts of the Case​

3. Cause of Action​

4. Deficiency in Service & Unfair Trade Practice​

5. Reliefs Sought​

6. List of Documents (Annexures)​