1.12.2008 Sri.K.Gopalan, President This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the oppoiste parties to pay a sum of Rs 25,000/- as compensation. The case of the complainant in brief is as follows The complainant is a taxi driver at Kuthuparamba. Complainant availed a loan of Rs 60,000/-from first opposite party through opposite party No.2 as per hire purchase agreement dated 18.10.2001 and agreed to repay the same in 20 monthly instalments. The petitioner kept an amount of Rs 3000/- with first respondent as per his direction as a security expecting payment irregularly and default from the petitioner. He actually received Rs 57000/-from 1st opposite party. He repaid the entire dues. Payment also made through 2nd opposite party , the local agent of 1st opposite party. But 2nd opposite party though entered in the pass book kept with the complainant did not send the amount to 1st opposite party in time. Complainant paid Rs. 3500/-on 18.10.2002 and Rs 2350/- on 18.7.2004 . 2nd opposite party has misappropriated these two amounts of payments. The complainant on 21.8.2004 sent a D.D for Rs 9400/-through his counsel and requested 1st opposite party to release the documents clearance in favour of the complainant. After receiving the same 1st opposite party sent a registered lawyer notice to complainant to pay an amount of Rs 18,320/-. Thereafter on 17.9.2004 complainant sent a D.D. f or Rs 5850/-along with one notice through his counsel to R1. He also sent the copies of the pages of the pass book and the copies of the receipt of the pass book and the copies of the receipt given by 2nd opposite party. . 1st opposite party did not reply and not send back the documents including the signed blank cheque, signed blank stamp paper and other documents kept with 1st opposite party at the time of availing the loan. He has not given the clearance so far. Complainant approached 2nd opposite party several times and requested to give back documents and other papers. Complainant wants to submit the same before the R.T.O for perusal and to obtain certificates and permits for his vehicle KL 13C 7572.Opposite parties 1 and 2 are unnecessarily keeping these documents . Complainant paid all payments regularly. It is 2nd opposite party who made default and not the complainant. Complainant suffered loss and damages due to the deficiency in service. The opposite parties are liable to return the documents and pay compensation. Complainant estimates Rs. 25000/- as compensation. Persuant to the notice sent by the Forum opposite parties 1 & 2 made appearance and filed version. The contention of Ist opposite party in brief are as follows: The first opposite party is a reputed finance company in Automobile field in the city of Chennai. The entire transaction of the hire purchase agreement is under a written contract between the complainant and the first opposite party. First opposite party is neither a dealer nor a seller. There is no deficiency in service. The terms and conditions framed in the hire purchase dt. 10.10.2001at Chennai between the complainant and first opposite party in respect of the vehicle KL 13C 7572. Complainant came to Chennai on 26.8.2004 to the office of the first opposite party and he himself checked and verified his balance due amount. The first opposite party furnished true statement of accounts to the complainant. Complainant was satisfied with the calculation . The statement of accounts shows that now the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs 24,000/-. Additional hire charges and O.D. interest for the irregular remittance of the due amount, incidental sundry expenses and final settlement additional hire charges, legal expenses have to be met by the complainant. The complainant demanded for H.P. Termination and NOC without settling the entire due balance. It is quite ill motivated and dishonest which cannot be allowed. The contentions of the complainant that he has repaid the dues correctly and those payments made through 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party is the local agent of the Ist opposite party and that even though respondent no.2 entered the paid up amount in the pass book kept with the petitioner he did not send the same to the Ist opposite party in time and that the petitioner remitted an amount of Rs 3500/- on 18.10.2002 and Rs 2350/-on 18.7.2004 and that 2nd opposite party has misappropriated these two payments and that the petitioner on 21.8.2004 sent a D.D. for Rs 9400/- through his counsel and requested Ist opposite party to release the document and clearance in favour of the complainant are all incorrect and false. The complainant is not entitled for any remedy. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint. Opposite party no.2 filed version separately. Contentions of 2nd opposite party in brief are as follows: The averments in the complaint that complainant is a taxi driver and availed an amount of Rs 60,000/- from the Ist opposite party through 2nd opposite party as per a hire purchase agreement dt.18.10.2001 and agreed to repay in installments and the complainant kept an amount of Rs 3000/- with Ist opposite party as a security are admitted by this opposite party The averment of the complainant that the complainant had repaid all the dues correctly are not aware to this opposite party. The averments that the complainant had made payments also through this opposite party and the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs 3,500/-on 18.10.2002 and Rs 2,350/- on 18.7.2004 are all true and is hereby admitted. But the averments that although the opposite party had entered the paid up amount in the pass book and this opposite party had not sent the same to the respondent and this opposite party had misappropriated those two payments are all false and denied. This opposite party is only an agent of first opposite party. The alleged hire purchase agreement was entered in between the first opposite party and the complainant. This opposite party was engaged as an agent of the first opposite party to see that all the hirer under this opposite party has paid the installments properly. If the hirers are paying the installments through this opposite party, this opposite party will issue the receipt to the hirers and the amount will be sent to the first opposite party by demand draft immediately. The date on which payment receipt was issued shall be considered as the date of payment made by the hirers. This opposite party had sent the amount of Rs 5850/-given by the complainant to the first opposite party, But first opposite party had not issued receipt. Later the complainant came to 2nd opposite party with some men and threatened saying that if opposite party is not returning the amount of Rs 5,850/- to him he will not permit this opposite party to live in peace. So this opposite party was constrained to give an amount of Rs 5850/-from his account to the complainant. It was informed to first opposite party and asked to return back the amount. This opposite party is not aware whether the complainant has sent a draft for Rs 9400/- thorough his counsel to first opposite party to release the documents and clearance . This opposite party is not also aware whether first opposite party send lawyer notice asking to pay Rs 18320/- . He is not also ware of the allegation that the complainant gave signed blank cheques and blank stamp papers and other documents to first opposite party. This opposite party is an unnecessary party. If the full amount has been paid the first opposite party alone is liable to return the documents to the complainant. The opposite party being an agent cannot be made liable for the alleged act of first opposite party who is the principal. This opposite party is not in possession of any document of the complainant. On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration. 1.Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint? 3.. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1. NO documents filed on the side of opposite parties. ISSUES 1 to 3: Admittedly complainant availed loan of Rs 60,000/-from first opposite party, Complainant’s case is that it is availed through 2nd opposite party. 2nd opposite party has admitted. 2nd opposite party has also admitted that Rs 3000/- has been retained by Ist opposite party as security. 2nd opposite party has also admitted that complainant has made payments through 2nd opposite party. Payments of Rs 3500/-on 18.10.2002 and Rs 2350/- on 18.7.2004 are also admitted by 2nd opposite party as true. 2nd opposite party has admitted that he is the agent of first opposite party. But he has stated that he has no role in respect of the agreement. He was engaged as an agent to see that the hirers under him whether paid the amount or not. His admission and Ext. A1 series receipts absence of non evaluation of the work done by 2nd opposite party by the first opposite party etc leads to say that 2nd opposite party was the agent of first opposite party. 2nd opposite party has stated he will issue receipts to the hirers and the amount will be sent to the first opposite party by demand drafts immediately. Ist opposite party has snot denied these statements of 2nd opposite party whereas first opposite party has state din his version that “ the contentions in the complaint that even though respondent no.2 entered the paid up amount in the pass book kept with the petitioner he did not send the same to the respondent no.1 in time”..................................... are all incorrect and false. This is an admission that 2nd opposite party has paid the amount to first opposite party. Even if this admission is ignored it can be seen on verification of the receipts that 29 months. The receipts which contain the seal and signature of first opposite party had been issued to the complainant. That shows receipts are issued by first opposite party and money is paid to 2nd opposite party. It is 2nd opposite party who sent this money to first opposite party. First opposite party at any rate cannot say that he had no information with respect to the issuance of receipts in his name. If 2nd opposite party was not an agent of first opposite party he should have taken action against 2nd opposite party for representing first opposite party. All the receipts issued by first opposite party under the seal and signature of Ajith Raj Ostwall bears the name of 2nd opposite party, Rajan. Thus these receipts not merely proves the payment but also proves that 2nd opposite party was the agent of first opposite party.Ext.A1 (1) to A1(25) consist of the seal and signature of Ajit Raj Ostwall. The entry in the pass book tally with the receipts. Hence receipts and entry in the pass book Exts. A1 to A4 proves the payments. Complainant sent Ext. A5 notice detailing the payment and demanding to make the clearance. It has specifically stated that he was sending a D.D. For Rs 5850/-(D.D.No.816338 dated 16.9.2004of the Syndicate Bank, Kuthuparamba) along with the notice and documents. It has also mentioned that first opposite party had kept an amount of Rs 3000/-while releasing the loan amount and demanded to return the amount and documents giving clearance. No reply was sent by first opposite party. Complainant had sent a notice Ext. A6 on 21.8.2004 together with a D.D. For Rs 9400/- dt. 21.8.2004of Syndicate Bank, Kuthuparamba and demanded to send all the documents kept with him in connection with the loan. First opposite party replied Ext. A6 stating that the complainant has paid due amount of Rs 87650/- and balance pending Rs 5850+ 12470( ie balance + default) Ext. A5 shows that complainant has made payment of Rs 5850/-, which is the balance amount shown in the Ext. A7. According to complainant he is not liable to pay the default amount since there is no fault on his part but fault had been committed by 2nd opposite party, the agent of first opposite party. First opposite party did not reply Ext. A5. Ext. A5 dated 16.9.2004 detailed the balance amount to be paid is Rs 3070/-. It has also detailed that at the time of releasing the loan amount first opposite party had kept an amount of Rs 3000/- with him and he is liable to repay the same. Reply to Ext. A5 should have been sent by first opposite party. The omission of sending reply to Ext. A5 itself is a deficiency on the part of the first opposite party. The available evidence on record shows that the complainant has paid the entire amount. Exts. A1(1) to A1(26), 20 receipts are issued for Rs 3500 each which comes to a total of Rs 70,000/-and 6 receipts issued for Rs 2350 each comes to Rs 14,100/- and Ext. A2 D.D. for Rs 9400 and also Ext. A3 D.D for Rs 5850/-altogether comes to a total of Rs 99,350/-. The complainant received a sum of Rs 57,000/- out of the loan amount Rs 60,000/- from first opposite party. It can be seen from the scrutiny of Ext. A1 series that first opposite party has received the amount through 2nd opposite party. Thus the relationship from the situation of the respective parties and the course of dealings proves that 2nd opposite party is the connecting link between first opposite party and complainant. If first opposite party has received the amount sent by 2nd opposite party that is evidently ratification of the act done by 2nd opposite party which is quite sufficient to come into conclusion that 2nd opposite party is the agent of first opposite party. It has to bear in mind that an act done for another by a person, not assuming to act for himself but for such other person, though without any precedent authority whatever becomes the act of the principal if subsequently ratified him, is the known and well established rule of law. Hence we have no hesitation to hold that 2nd opposite party was the agent of first opposite party and first opposite party is answerable for any delay committed by 2nd opposite party in sending the payments and not the complainant. For the defaults of 2nd opposite party in remitting the amount it unjustifiable to penalize the complainant and that can only be considered only as unfair trade practice. In the light of above discussion it is found that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. Hence we are of opinion that opposite party is liable to issue clearance certificate of vehicle bearing No.KL13 7572 together with a sum of Rs 5000/- with interest at 12% p.a from the date of receiving this order, as compensation and Rs 1000/-as cost of this proceedings. Thus issues 1 to 3 found in favour of complainant. Order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the first opposite party to issue the clearance certificate of vehicle bearing Reg: No. KL 13. 7572 together with a sum of Rs 5000/-( Rupees five thousand only) with an interest @ 12% p.a from the date of receiving this order as compensation and Rs 1000/-( Rupees one thousand only) as cost of this proceedings, within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against first opposite party under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainat A1.series.Receipts issued by OP 1 A2.Copy of the DD dt.20.8.2004 A3.Copy of the DD dt.16.9.2004 A4.Cash entry book A5.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP2 A6.Copy of the lawyernoitce 21.8.04 sent to OP1 A7.Reply notice dt.7.9.04 sent byOP1 A8.Reply notice dt.1.11.04 sent byOP2 A9.Reply Notice dt.5.11.04 Exhibits for the opposite party :Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite parties DW!.E.Rajan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.