By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
The brief of the complaint:- The complainant has availed a loan for the vehicle No. KL 12 C 1229 from opposite party and the repayment was completed on 20.05.2009 and the 2nd opposite party executed termination certificate to cancel the endorsement. The same was issued on 14.06.2009. But they did not return the R.C. to the complainant on repeated requests. The complainant has filed a petition before the TLSC. In the above case the opposite parties were appeared and availed time to produce the R.C. but they have not produced the same, thereafter the petition is closed. The act of the opposite parties are gross negligence and unfair trade practice. Hence it is prayed that direct the opposite parties to return the original R.C. Book of vehicle No. KL 12 C 1229. On failure on their part the opposite parties, direct the RTO Wayanad to issue fresh RC
Book to the complainant. To pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards the damages and Rs.1,500 as to cost.
2. Notices were served to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed his version. Opposite party No.1 neither appeared nor filed his version. Hence he was set exparte. In the version of Opposite party No.2 he has stated that the complaint is barred by resjudicata in the event that the complainant had filed a similar complaint against this opposite party before this Forum and the same has taken in to file as C.C.186/2010 which was dismissed for default. In the above case also the opposite party has appeared and filed his version. In the version opposite party No.2 admitted that the complainant has availed a loan for the vehicle from opposite party No.2 and the same was completed on 20.05.2009. Accordingly this opposite party had issued NOC to the complainant on 10.06.2009 along with Form No.35 for lifting the hypothecation endorsement. The opposite party has denied that he has accepted the RC Book from the complainant. He stated in the version that as per the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules the RTO authorities issued the RC to the RC owner of the vehicle and not to the financier. The averments stated in the complaint are false. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
3. On perusing the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.
Point No.1:- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite
parties?.
Point No.2:- Relief and Cost.
4. Point No.1:- To prove the complainant's case the complainant has filed his chief
affidavit. In the chief affidavit he has stated that the RC Book of his vehicle has not been returned by the opposite party. For not getting RC from opposite party he has filed CC 186/2010, The complainant was cross examined by the council of opposite party No.2. At the time of the cross examination he has admitted that “ Cu lcPnbn Bhniys¸« \nhr¯n¡mbn CC 186/2010 Bbn asämcp tIkv Cu tImSXnbn ^bem¡nbncp¶p. CC 186/2010 tIkv \S¡pt¼mÄ 2mw FXrI£n RC Xcmw F¶p ]dªXn\m Rm³ tImSXnbn lmPdmbnà AXn\m tIkv XÅnt¸mbn. B tIkv Xncn¨v ^ben ]nSn¡m³ \S]Sn kzoIcn¨n«nÃ.” that means the complainant has already filed the complaint for the same relief from the very same opposite party and that was taken in to file as CC 186/2010 which was dismissed for the default by this Forum. That means the complaint is barred by resjudicata. Hence we are not discussing the merit of the case. The complainant ought to have restore the said complaint instead of filing this fresh complaint by suppressing of the earlier complaint. Hence we are dismissing this complaint.
5. Point No.2:- Since the complaint is dismissed we are not discussing the point No.2 in detail.
No order as to cost.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 31st October 2011
Date of filing:11.07.2011.
