In the matter of an application filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties.
Brief facts of the case is that :-
The complainant has purchased a vehicle (Bolero) bearing Registration No. OD-26-0479 being financed by the O.P. No. 1 vide Medium Term Loan Account No. 32616152641 and hypothecated the said vehicle to O.P. No. 1 and the vehicle is registered before the Registratering Authority (R.T.O.) Nuapada (O.P. No. 2) on payment of necessary registration fees and tax with an endorsement on the registration certificate that the said vehicle is H.P./Lease with State Bank of India. The complainant has already repay the entire loan to the O.P. No. 1 and accordingly O.P. No.1 has issued a clearance certificate in favour of the complainant on the said vehicle on 23.11.2015. Thereafter the complainant and O.P. No. 1 have jointly gave notice of termination of hypothecation U/R 41 (b) of the ORISSA Moters Vehicle Rules, 1940 to the O.P. No. 2 on 23.11.2015 to cancel the note of hypothecation endorsed on the certificate of registration of the said vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-26-0479 through Registered Post vide No. RO717804037IN which is duly received by the O.P. No. 2. In further O.P. No. 1 has also sent a letter bearing No. 06/76, dated 23.11.2015 to O.P. No. 2 for cancellation of endorsement of hypothecation on the registration certificate of the above said vehicle. Due to dire need of money the complainant wanted to sell the said vehicle but nobody has agreed his offer for sell of the same as the endorsement of hypothecation with State Bank of India has not been cancelled on the certificate of registration of the said vehicle as on date though O.P. No. 2 has received the above said letter and notice of termination of agreement of hypothecation from O.P. No. 1. The complainant has also approached before the O.P.s to take action
on his grievance. Due to negligence and delay for cancellation of endorsement of hypothecation on the said vehicle, the complainant is compelled to pay the tax at higher rate to the O.P. No. 2 and also compelled to insure the vehicle at higher premium for which the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.Ps and the cause of action for this complaint arose on 23.11.2015 when the complainant has cleared all his his dues of the said loan and issued notice to O.P. No. 2 for cancellation of endorsement of hypothecation on the registration certificate of the said vehicle. But the same has not been cancelled. The complainant also filed an affidavit in support of their claim. As such the complainant claim for relief’s as prayed for.
The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claims as under :-
- True copy of Registration Certificate particulars of vehicle bearing Regd. No. OD-26-0479 (Annexure-1).
- True copy of Certificate of Registration of vehicle OD-26-0479 (Annexure-2).
- True copy of notice of termination of Agreement of hypothecation sent to O.P. No. 2 dated 23.11.2015 by complainant and O.P. No. 1 jointly (Annexure-3).
- True copy of letter for cancellation of Hypothecation vide letter No. 06/76 dated 23.11.2015 sent to O.P. No. 2 by O.P. No.1 (Annexure-4).
Being noticed, O.P. No. 1 has appeared through his Advocate and filed their written version and admitted the Paragraph No. 1 to 5 of the complaint petition and also admitted that he has issued a no dues certificate on 23.11.2015 but he denied the rest of allegations of complaint petition. O.P. No. 1 also filed an affidavit and fairly admitted in Paragraph No. 3 & 4 that he has issued no dues certificate on 23.11.2015 to the complainant and also intimated the same to the O.P. No. 2 by Registered Post about clearance of dues by the complainant and for cancellation of the hypothecation of the vehicle vide its letter No. 06/76, dated 23.11.2015 along with the FORM H.P. TER and a copy of Registration Certificate which is received by O.P. No. 2 on 18.12.2015. O.P. No. 1 has not filed any documents in this case.
O.P. No. 2 has appeared through Govt. Pleader, Nuapada and filed their written version and stated that the letter No. 06/76 dated 23.11.2015 was despatched by State Bank of India, Kureswar Branch and he has received the said letter on 18.12.2015 but he denied the rest of the allegations of the complaint petition in this case. O.P. No. 2 has not filed any documents in this case.
In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in the eye of law ?
- Is there any cause of action arose in this case ?
- Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
ISSUE No. 1, 2 & 3.
Since the issues are very much linked up with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.
On perusal of records, it is seen that the complainant has purchased a vehicle (Bolero) bearing Regd. No. OD-26-0479 being financed by O.P. N. 1 vide Medium Term Loan Account No. 32616152641 and Hypothecated the said vehicle with O.P. No. 1 and the vehicle is registered before the Registering Authority (R.T.O., Nuapada) (O.P. No.2) on payment of necessary registration fees and tax with an endorsement on the registration certificate that the said vehicle is H.P./Lease with State Bank of India. Thereafter, the complainant has repay the entire loan to the O.P. No. 1 and accordingly he issued a clearance certificate to the complainant on the said vehicle on 23.11.2015 and basing on that the complainant and O.P. No. 1 have jointly gave a notice of termination of Hypothecation U/R 41 (b) of the Orissa Motors Vehicle Rules, 1940 and O.P. No. 1 also individually gave a letter bearing No. 06/76 to the O.P. No. 2 on 23.11.2015 to cancel the note of hypothecation endorsed on the Certificate of Registration of the said vehicle bearing No. D-26-0479 through Registered Post which is duly received by O.P. No. 2 on 18.12.2015 as Annexure-3 & 4 but he did not heed for the same and also he has not taken any steps on the grievances of complainant as yet and due to negligence of O.P. No.2, the complainant is unable to transfer it from Taxi to private vehicle for which he compelled to pay the tax at higher rate to O.P. No. 2 and also to insure the vehicle at higher premium.
In another point is that, due to dire need of money, the complainant wanted to sell the said vehicle but he is unable to do the same as the endorsement of hypothecation with the State Bank of India has not been cancelled on the Certificate of Registration of the said vehicle as yet for which the complainant is suffering financial loss, mental agony and harassment.
In another factual aspect is that O.P. No. 1 has performed his duty properly as per Annexure-3 & 4 and there is no any negligence or any deficiency in service from the side of O.P. No. 1 and as such he is not liable in this case.
In another vital point is that O.P. No. 2 has admitted in their written version that he has received a letter bearing No. 06/76, dated 23.11.2015 from O.P. No. 1 on 18.12.2015 (Annexure-4) but he has not taken any steps to cancel the said endorsement as yet which is squarely absured by him though it is duty of O.P. No. 2 to intimate and to provide proper service to the complainant on the same without any hesitation. But O.P. No. 2 failed to do the same.
Such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.
So from the perusal of the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 apply to all type of goods, all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid or promised. Section 14 (iv) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is of wide connotation. So the status of consumer cannot be deniable and thereby the maintainability and the complainant has cause of action.
A decision quoted that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY V/s BALBIR SINGH that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer has to be taken into consideration while compensating him for the loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider.
So, we perceived that the claim of complainant is relevant and justified and as such taken in consideration. But it is seen that the plea taken by the O.P. No. 2 is not genuine and not at all applicable to any corner and any help to him and as such O.P. No. 2 is vicariously liable for deficiency in service.
It is apparent from the above issue that, there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. No. 2 as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.P.No. 2.
So, we are of considered opinion that, there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. No. 2. Thus, the O.P. No. 2 is liable for deficiency in service.
ISSUE No. 4.
It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order.
O R D E R
In the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under:-
- We direct the opposite party No.2 (Two) to cancel the endorsement of hypothecation with State Bank of India mentioned in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle (Bolero) bearing registration No.OD 26 0479 within 30(Thirty) days from the date of order.
- We further direct the Opposite Party No.2 (Two) to pay Rupees 15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards financial loss, mental agony and harassment and to further pay of Rupees 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only towards litigation cost within 30(Thirty) days from the date of order.
- Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.
Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, Odisha, this the 19th day of December 2017.