By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :-
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The complainant is the R.C Owner of the Tempo Trax Pick up No. KL 12B 8152. The purchase of the vehicle was upon the finance of the1st Opposite Party and the same was arranged by the 2nd Opposite Party, the agent of the 1st Opposite Party and an agreement was executed at Mananthavady regarding the terms and conditions of the transaction. The Complainant availed a loan of Rs.3,07,500/- and for which an interest charged is Rs.1,01,259 at 8% flat rate and the repayment as per the terms of agreement was to be in 47 instalments of Rs. 8,697 on monthly wise. The last instalments became due on 16.05.2008. The Complainant repaid the loan amount higher than the amount actually to be paid as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Even after that the Opposite Parties were not ready to act their part as the terms and conditions agreed upon. The 2nd Opposite Party demanded Rs.68,000/- as an additional amount for the closing of the loan. The Complainant is not liable to pay such an excess amount as demanded by the 2nd Opposite Party. The entire transaction effected at Mananthavady and Calicut, the field representative of the 2nd Opposite Party contacted the complainant to pave the way for the issuance of the loan. The 3rd Opposite Party is the Road Transport Authority having the authority to cancel higher purchase endorsement in the R.C. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to issue clearance certificate and no due certificate of the vehicle bearing registration No. KL 12B 8152. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 direction may be given to the 3rd Opposite Party to cancel the higher purchase endorsement in the R.C Book of the vehicle. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 may also be directed to give the Complainant Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation with respect to the sufferings and inconvenience caused to the Complainant. 2. The 2nd Opposite Party filed version. The notice sent to the 1st Opposite Party was not returned in that circumstances, the notice deemed to be served to the 1st Opposite Party and in the absence of version of the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party is declared as exparte. 3. The sum up of the version filed by the 2nd Opposite Party is as follows:- The contention of the Complainant is that the 2nd Opposite Party is having business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is false. The Opposite Party is not having any office within the jurisdiction limit of this Forum. The vehicle was used for commercial purpose and as a result the complaint cannot be entertained. More over in case of any dispute arises in between the Complainant and Opposite Party, as averred in the agreement, the dispute is to be adjudicated by the arbitrator.
4. The Complainant is not having any right to get the clearance certificate or no due certificate since the due amount from the Complainant is not cleared. The cancellation of hire purchase endorsement on issuance of clearance certificate is possible only if the liability of the Complainant is cleared. The 2nd Opposite Party is ready to issue the necessary certificate if the due amount of the Complainant is cleared. The amount demanded by the Complainant towards the cost and compensation is not based on any reasons hence to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.
5. The 3rd Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows. The LGC KL 12/B 8152 is registered in the name of K.P. Joy, S/o Paily, Kuttithottathil Veedu, Ellumannam on 22.6.2004. The vehicle is held under HPA with City Corp. Finance India Ltd., Kochi. No application duly signed by the financiers enabling the authority for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement is not so far reached, the hire purchase endorsement still persists.
6. The points in consideration are:- Whether the complaint is not maintainable since the vehicle was used for commercial purpose ?
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. 3. Relief and costs.
7. The points No.1, 2 and 3:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Exts. A1 to A6 are the documents marked for the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party filed proof affidavit swearing the contentions. Ext.B1 is the document produced for the Opposite Party. The Complainant and Opposite Party have given oral testimony in this case. The Complainant is examined as PW1. The 2nd Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 in this case. The contention of the 2nd Opposite Party that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose engaging a driver for plying the vehicle. The vehicle was running as a taxy. It is the settled position of the act at that the driver can be appointed by the owner of the vehicle. The only reason of such that vehicle was plied by a driver for taxy purpose does not exclude the Complainant from adjudicating the dispute in Consumer Forum.
8. The case of the Complainant is that for the purchase of the vehicle No. KL 12/B 8152 Tempo Trax Pick up availed a loan of Rs.3,07,500/- from the 2nd Opposite Party. The terms and conditions of repayment was such that the loan amount was to be repaid in 47 instalments and interest accrued comes Rs.1,01,259/-, estimateed at 8% flat rate. The monthly instalments assigned by the party consists of Rs.8,697/-. The last due date for clearing the liability was decided to be on or before 16.5.2008. According to the Complainant, liability on its side for the repayment of entire loan amount was paid before the last due date ie on 16.5.2008. Ext.B1 is the print out extract of ledger stating the repayment schedule of the Complainant towards the loan amount. The 2nd Opposite Party has no case that the Complainant has not repaid Rs.4,08,759/- before the final due date. The loan amount and its interest at the rate of 8% in total comes Rs.4,08,759/-. The calculation of interest admitted by the Opposite Party and Complainant is flat rate. The amount agreed for the repayment was monthly wise and it consists of Rs.8,697/-. On examination of the 2nd Opposite Party it is admitted that the Complainant repaid Rs.4,87,059/- and entire repayment was before 16.5.2008 the final date decided in the terms of agreement. The 2nd Opposite Party is with a further claim of an additional amount for the average delay of 105.53 days out of 47 instalments due. Since the payment was made by the Complainant before the last due date, the delay considered by 2nd opposite Party in payment is against reasons. The 2nd Opposite Party is responsible for the issuance of No Due Certificate necessary for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. The non delivery of the letter absolving the complainant from the liability to the 2nd Opposite Party is a deficiency in service and the points are found accordingly.
9. The Complainant already paid the amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The balance amount demanded by the 2nd Opposite Party is only with respect to the delay in the instalments. The 3rd Opposite Party is the authorised authority who has to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the registration certificate. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are directed to issue no objection certificate to the 3rd Opposite Party for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle No. KL 12/B 8152. In case of any failure on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in the issuance of no objection certificate for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement within 30 days from the date of this order . The 3rd Opposite Party has to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the certificate of registration of the vehicle No. KL 12/B 8152 upon application by the Complainant. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are directed to issue the Complainant No Objection Certificate for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the certificate of registration of vehicle No. KL 12/B 8152 within one month from the date of this order. In case of any failure on the part of the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties in the issuance of the No Objection Certificate. The 3rd Opposite Party has to cancel the hire purchase endorsement on application of the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled for the cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) from the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. The 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 16th December 2009.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER- I : Sd/-
MEMBER- II: Sd/- APPENDIX
Witness for the Complainant.
PW1. Joy K.P. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties.
OPW1. Sunil kumar P.V. Senior Executive, Legal, Magma Fin corp, Vytilla.
Exhibits for the the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration. A2. Copy of Letter. dt:16.06.2004.
A3.(20 numbers) Loan Statement. A4.(41 numbers) Receipt. A5. Original Receipt. dt:21.02.2005. A6. Dues VS Paid Statement. dt:27.03.2008. Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:
B1. Print out extract of ledger.
......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................SAJI MATHEW | | 
