KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 136/2009

JUDGMENT DATED: 22-12-2010

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :PRESIDENT

SHRI.S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR                             : MEMBER

1.      Branch Manager,

Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.,

Branch Office, Chathothu Bldg.,

Kalpetta, Kalpetta.P.O, Wayanad Dist.

                                                                   : APPELLANTS

2.      K.Gopalakrishna Bhat,

S/o Late K.Ramadas Bhat,

General Power of Attorney Holder,

M/s Maharashtra Apex Corporation Ltd.,

Syndicate House, Manipal,

South Kannada.

(By Adv.Sri.G.S.Kalkura)

          Vs.

1.    A.Devassy, S/o Anthony,

Angili House.P.O, Puthooravayal,

Kalpetta.

(By Adv.Sri.R.Anilkumar & B.A.Krishna Kumar)

   2.   P.T.Abu, S/o Late Moideenkutty,

Padickathodiyil House,

Vaduvanchal.P.O, Thomattuchal.

    3.   Regional Transport Officer,

Regional Transport Office,

Civil Station, Wayanad.                   : RESPONDENTS

  4.    Village Officer, Thrikaipatta Village,

Thrikkaipatta.P.O, Vythiri Taluk.

  5.    Deputy Tahasildar, Revenue Recovery,

Vythiri Taluk. Vythiri P.O.

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

The appellants are opposite parties 1 and 2/Financiers in OP.24/05 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad.  The complaint stands allowed and opposite parties 1 and 2 have been directed to take steps to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the actual owner and to release the complainant from any further liability.

2. The matter relates to the finance availed by the complainant from the appellants and the subsequent alleged surrender of the vehicle and sale to the 3^rd opposite party.   The complainant had sought for getting the title deeds etc submitted to secure the loan released and for an order to stop the RR proceedings initiated by the 4^th opposite party for the tax dues etc.

3. Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the complainant and the 1^st opposite party and Exts.A1 to A19 and C1 to C4 and B1.

4. The grievance of the appellants is only with respect to the direction to the appellants to take steps to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the 3^rd opposite party, the subsequent purchaser.  The counsel for the appellant has pointed out that as per Ext.B1 agreement executed between the complainants and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the complainant has agreed not to press the present complaint.  It is pointed out that the above document was not considered by the Forum.  It was also pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that during the pendency of the proceedings before the arbitrator the complainant paid Rs.1.lakh and the complainant was released from all liabilities with the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  It is for the 3^rd opposite party the subsequent purchaser to take steps to get the vehicle transferred in his name.  We find nobody except OPs 1 and 2 has filed any appeal.  In the circumstances direction to the appellants to see that steps are taken to get the vehicle transferred in the name of the actual owner is set aside.  The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained.

In the result the appeal is allowed in part as above.  The office

is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:PRESIDENT

S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER

VL.