BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 373/2004 Filed on 27.09.2004

Dated : 30.09.2009

Complainant:

R.S. Vineesh Kumar, 11/555, Oorachal Suja Bhavan, Kanchiyoorkonam, Kulathummel Village, Kattakkada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 572.

(By adv. Kurien P. John)

Opposite parties:

1. Dealer, Anton Auto, 6/1247, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram-695 025.

    

   (By adv. M.A. Rasheed)

2. Area Manager, TVS Finance & Services Ltd., Mayoor Business Centre, Chittoor Road, Ernakulam, Cochin-35.

    

3. Branch Manager, TVS Finance & Services Ltd., C/o Anton Auto, 6/1247, Neeramankara, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. K. Satheesh Kumar)

This O.P having been heard on 14.09.2009, the Forum on 30.09.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant R.S. Vineesh Kumar purchased a TVS Max 100 Motor Cycle on 06.02.2004 under a loan agreement with the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. As per that agreement, the original R.C. Book is kept by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties as a security for the loan amount and a certified copy is given to the complainant. Here without giving the certified copy of R.C Book the original is kept by the opposite parties and the complainant is forced to keep the vehicle idle without the copies of documents. The complainant's repeated demands and requests were denied by the opposite parties with flimsy reasons. It is informed from the R.T. Office that the original R.C Book was received by the opposite parties from there. It is very difficult to use the vehicle without R.C. Book. The complainant states that several times police authorities imposed fine upon him for the reason that he used the vehicle without R.C Book. Hence he approached this Forum to the redressal of his grievances.

The 1^st opposite party Anton Auto has filed their version stating that they are not a necessary party for the adjudication of this matter. The 1^st opposite party being a dealer is engaged in selling the vehicle manufactured by TVS Motor Company to the customers and is entrusted with their service only. It is the duty of either the purchaser or the financier concerned to produce the vehicle before the RTO concerned and obtain permanent registration. So they prayed for exonerating them from any kind of liability.

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the certified copy of the R.C Book has been handed over to the complainant immediately on receipt of the RC. Book from the R.T.O. They further contended that they are entitled to keep the original R.C Book in their custody till the loan availed by the complainant is repaid in full.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked 9 documents on the side of the petitioner. The affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged because nobody cross examined him.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?

2. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- In this case to prove his contentions the complainant has produced 9 documents. The documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P9. Ext. P1 is the copy of advocate notice dated 24.07.2004 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P2 is the postal receipt of Ext. P1. Ext. P3 is the acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P4 is the copy of advocate notice dated 02.09.2004 issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P5 is the postal receipt of Ext. P4. Ext. P6 is the returned acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P7 is the receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party showing the payment of registration charges etc. Ext. P8 is the copy of receipt of fine charged by the Malayinkeezhu Police from the complainant on 09.10.2004. Ext. P9 is the payments slips. In this case the complainant states that it is very difficult to use the vehicle without R.C Book. It is the duty of the opposite parties to issue duplicate R.C Book to the complainant when they received the original R.C Book from the R.T.O. But in this case the opposite parties did not serve the duplicate R.C Book to the complainant. From the documents on record we find that the original R.C Book was received by the opposite parties from the R.T.O. Nobody can use the vehicle without R.C Book. We can understand the difficulty, mental agony and inconvenience sustained by the complainant without R.C Book. It is the duty of the Financier to return the original R.C Book to the complainant after the full payment of the loan amount. In this case during the pendency of this case complainant has paid the entire amount to the financier. But the financier did not issue the original or duplicate R.C Book to the complainant. During the pendency of this case this Forum passed an interlocutory order directing the opposite parties to give the R.C book to the complainant after the full payment of the loan amount. But the opposite parties did not turn up to comply the order. From the documents and pleadings and arguments of the complainant we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get the R.C Book from the opposite parties. But from the pleadings and arguments of the opposite parties, we have understood that the original R.C Book was lost from their custody. But they have not admitted that fact. They are trying to evade from their liabilities on flimsy excuses. And moreover in this case the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged because nobody turned up to cross examine him. From the above said facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience due to the negligent and deficient service of the opposite parties for which we find Rs. 5,000/- as reasonable compensation. Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of September 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 373/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Copy of advocate notice dated 24.07.2004 issued by the

complainant to 1^st opposite party.

P2 - Postal receipt dated 24.07.2004

P3 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party.

P4 - Copy of advocate notice dated 02.09.2004 issued by the

complainant to 1^st opposite party.

P5 - Postal receipt dated 02.09.2004.

P6 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 1^st opposite party.

P7 - Copy of receipt for Rs. 1,315/- issued by 1^st opposite party.

P8 - Copy of TR-5 receipt dated 09.10.2004.

P9 - Copy of payment slips.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT