IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the   31^st   Day of  March    2022

  Present: -  Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

                                                    CC.216/2019

Unnipillai                                          :         Complainant

S/o Gopalakrishna Pillai

Usha Bhavanam, Panayam P.O

Kollam.

[By Adv.S.Harikumar]

V/s

1. Bajaj Finserv                            :         Opposite parties

         Vidya Bhavanam

         Near Divya Lab

        Janayugam Nagar

        Kadappakkada, Kollam-691008.

2. Regional Transport Officer

        Office of RTO,

         Civil Station, Kollam.

FINAL   ORDER

Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

          This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

          The complainant is the registered owner of  an Autorikshaw bearing No.KL 2AS 3806.  The 1^st opposite party is the financier of the vehicle.  He purchased the above autorickshaw in a brand new condition on 14.07.2014 from Anantheswara Motors Pvt.Ltd. Kollam.  At the time of delivering the vehicle the complainant paid Rs.32,000/- as down payment and thereafter he spent Rs.15,000/- for its other work.  The complainant purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood.  The complainant paid the balance amount by availing loan from the 1^st opposite party agreed to be paid in installment @ Rs.5134/- per month for a period of 42 months.  The complainant paid the entire installment of 42 EMI at the above rate in the loan account No.L3WKLL03177343  and endorsed in the payment chart book while paying the amount.

          As the vehicle  has been running on contract carriage permit it has been renewed every year.  It was last renewed from 10.07.2018 to 09.07.2019.  For the renewal of certificate of fitness the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for  no objection certificate, at that time the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.25,000/- more to issue no objection certificate.  The 2^nd opposite party RTO, Kollam did not entertain the application for fitness certificate without no objection certificate from 1^st opposite party.  On several occasions seeking no objection certificate they have not issued the same.  The complainant had paid all the 42 installments as per the agreement and close the loan on 15.05.2018.  In the circumstances demand of the 1^st opposite party is illegal and against the agreed terms of the contract.  The 1^st opposite party with malafide intention obtained blank signed documents, cheques and demand promissory notes of the complainant and did not issue any copy of the same to the complainant.  As the complainant is in need of  a three wheeler for earning his livelihood and he was unable to raise the entire amount for purchasing the same,  he obtained the loan from the 1^st opposite party.  Therefore he is not in a position to demand the copy of the documents obtained from himself and sureties.  As the validity of fitness certificate was ended on 09.07.2019, the complainant cannot be used the autorickshaw  as a public carrier and the same has affected his livelihood.  But the 1^st opposite party is bargaining for illegal advantage quite unfair to complainant as a consumer of the 1^st opposite party availed service from them.  In the circumstances the complainant pray to issue direction to the 1^st opposite party to issue no objection certificate  in respect of the vehicle to the 2^nd opposite party and also issue direction to the 2^nd opposite party to issue fitness certificate  to the vehicle without no objection certificate from the financier/1^st opposite party  if the vehicle is otherwise fit to issue the same.  The complainant has suffered much mental agony apart from financial loss due to the act of the 1^st opposite party.   Therefore the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the 1^st opposite party for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

          Though  notice was served, opposite party No.1&2 did not appear and contest the case.  Hence they were set exparty.

          Though  the case was posted for recording exparty evidence the complainant failed to adduce any oral evidence.  However the documents filed along with the complaint and report filed by RTO, Kollam are marked as Ext.P1, P1(A) to P6 documents.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sough for in the complaint?
2. Reliefs and costs.

Point No.1

          The main relief sough for in the complaint is to direct the 1^st opposite party to issue NOC in respect of the hypothecated 3 wheeler belongs to the complainant.  The 2^nd relief sought for is direction to the RTO to issue fitness certificate of the 3 wheeler bearing registration No.KL 02 AS 3806 by inspecting without NOC from the 1^st opposite party if it is otherwise fit and proper to issue the same.  The 3^rd relief sought for is costs and compensation to the complainant.  The specific allegation of the complainant is that even though the complainant paid all the loan installments the 1^st opposite party has not been issuing any NOC to obtain fitness certificate from the 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.P1 is  the original diary containing payment chart in respect of  the loan availed by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party.  The above book would indicate that the complainant has paid all 42 installments right from 05.09.2014 till 15.05.2018.  Therefore it is to be presumed that the complainant has paid all loan installments due to the 1^st opposite party.  The unchallenged averments in the complaint would further indicate that opposite party has not issued NOC.  Though the entire loan installment was paid and the complainant approached the opposite party and requesting for issuing the same.  However Ext.P6 report dated 16.03.2021 filed by the RTO would indicate that the hypothecation of the vehicle/autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL 02 AS 3806 has been noted in the registration certificate.  But as per the vahan software no NOC from the financial institution which lend loan is required to renew the certificate of fitness.  Therefore without any NOC from the financier the RTO has issued fitness certificate w.e.f 22.02.2021.  It is further stated in Ext.P6 that to obtain the service specified u/s 51(6) of the Motor Vehicle Act alone NOC from the financiers  is necessary.  In the light of Ext.P6 report it is crystal clear that no NOC from the 1^st opposite party which lend to the loan is required to renew or obtain the fitness certificate and the 2^nd opposite party has already granted fitness certificate w.e.f 22.02.2021.  Therefore the grievance of the complainant is already redressed.

          Though the complainant would claim costs and compensation he has not specifically pleaded and proved whether he sustained any mental agony and financial loss due to the non issuing of the NOC.  The complainant has not filed any proof affidavit regarding  the loss sustained to him.  He has abandoned the complaint without prosecuting may be due to the fact that the 2^nd opposite party has renewed the fitness certificate without obtaining NOC from the 1^st opposite party.

          On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view that the relief No.1&2 in the complainant has become infractious  in the light of Ext.P6 and there is absolutely no material to award compensation.  As the complainant has abandoned the complaint without prosecuting the same he is not entitled to get any costs also.  The points answered accordingly.

          In view of the reasons stated under point No.1 the complaint is only to be dismissed.  In the result complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 31^st  day of  March    2022.

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

          S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

         Stanly Harold:Sd/-

        Forwarded/by Order

         Senior Superintendent

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext P1         :  Original diary containing payment chart in respect of the loan availed by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party.

Ext.P1(A)   :  Copy of certificate of registration.

Ext P2         :   Copy of receipt dated 11.12.2014 for Rs.5134/-.

Ext.P3         :   Copy of contract carriage permit.

Ext.P4         :   Copy of certificate of fitness issued on 10.07.2018.

Ext.P5         :   Copy of payment chart book issued from the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.P6         :   Report dated 16.03.2021 filed by the RTO, Kollam.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

          S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

         Stanly Harold:Sd/-

        Forwarded/by Order

        Senior Superintendent