By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

Brief facts:-

1. Complainant purchased a bus for self employment of his brother and himself as means of earning their livelihood. Complainant availed vehicle finance for six lakhs from first opposite party for the said purchase. He deposited Rs.85,000/- initially and was told that this amount would be repaid. Several documents and seven blank cheque leaves were given to first opposite party. The amount was repayable in 48 instalments and complainant repaid Rs.2,90,000/-. Complainant then decided to sell the bus and intimated it to first opposite party requesting details to close the loan. Opposite party collected additional hire charges and interest upon interest and other charges, which are illegal. Though complainant told that he will pay the entire amount on the lst payment day first opposite party seized the bus without any notice. First opposite party demanded Rs.5,89,546/- to close the loan and release the vehicle. Complainant then entered into an agreement to sell the bus for Rs.8,00,000/- and approached first opposite party, who informed that the bus is already6y sold. The original Registration Certificate was with the complainant. That first opposite party is trying to obtain fresh registration certificate from second opposite party by illegal means. Complainant has submitted his objection before second opposite party. That the vehicle is sold for a low price. Complainant alleges deficiency in service against both opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2. First opposite party has filed version denying the complainant to be a consumer. It is stated that complainant is in the habit of availing finance from finance companies, willfully avoid repayments and file cases against these companies. That it is incorrect to say that complainant and his brother purchased the bus for self employment for earning their livelihood. Opposite party admits the hire purchase transaction. That as per the agreement complainant has to repay Rs.7,17,792/- by way of 47 monthly instalments commencing from 22-3-2005 and ending on 22-01-2009. The allegation that complainant submitted blank cheques and documents etc. are denied as false. Opposite party also denies that complainant deposited Rs.85,000/-. Complainant defaulted the instalment. Even after several intimations complainant did not pay the defaulted instalments. After giving intimation to Station House Officer of Tanur police station opposite party took possession of the vehicle peacefully without using force. The fact of repossession was intimated to complainant and concerned police station. Complainant failed to remit the balance and take release of the vehicle. After inviting quotations opposite party sold the vehicle for Rs.4,50,000/- which is the highest available market price. After sale of vehicle first opposite party applied to second opposite party to issue duplicate Registration Certificate which was issued. The other allegations are denied. That there is no deficiency in service. That the complaint may be dismissed.

3. Second opposite party has filed version stating that second opposite party being a government servant is an unnecessary party. Second opposite party denies the allegation in the complaint and submits that second opposite party has acted within the statutory provisions contained in Section 51(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. That after complying all procedural formalities and issuing notice to the complainant duplicate copy of the Registration Certificate was issued to first opposite party. No illegality has been committed by second opposite party. If complainant is aggrieved with the order passed he can approach the statutory appellate authority. Complainant has made no such attempt and that this litigation is without any basis. That second opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

4. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 marked for complainant. First opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B13 marked for first opposite party. Second opposite party filed separate counter affidavit and Ext.B14 marked for second opposite party. Either side has not adduced any oral evidence.

5. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether complainant is a consumer.

(ii) Whether opposite parties have committed any deficiency in service.

(iii) If so, reliefs and costs.

6. Point (i):-

Opposite party has disputed the complainant to be a consumer contending that complainant is in the habit of availing vehicle finances from various finance companies and after avoiding repayments engages in litigation against these companies. Though opposite party has not adduced any evidence in this regard it has come to the notice of this Forum, that the very same complainant had filed other cases before the Forum stating that the vehicles were purchased for self employment as means of earning livelihood. These are cases filed by complainant against finance companies for the vehicle finance availed by him. Therefore we are not inclined to accept the contention of the complainant that the bus was purchased by him for self employment as means of earning livelihood and that he is excluded from the meaning of services for commercial purpose. We hold that complainant is not a consumer. Point found against complainant.

7. Point (ii):-

The allegation levelled against first opposite party is that the vehicle was illegally seized and sold by first opposite party. The allegation levelled against second opposite party is that the duplicate copy of Registration Certificate was issued to first opposite party illegally. Complainant contends that he deposited Rs.85,000/- with first opposite party at the time of availing loan. There is no document to corroborate this contention and hence unacceptable. It is the case of complainant that opposite party seized the vehicle without prior notice. Complainant does not specifically state on which date the vehicle was repossessed. He has not specifically stated on which date he paid the instalment just prior to repossession of the vehicle. He vaguely affirms that he has paid Rs.2,90,000./- towards the loan. He does not have a case that he paid the EMI regularly without any default. As per Ext.B13 the amount in vehicle purchase invoice is Rs.5,82,014/- and complainant has availed finance of Rs.5,82,000/-. The total amount to be repaid is Rs.7,17,792/-. Per se a huge amount is still to be repaid. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions in Ext.B1 hire purchase agreement. Ext.A2 is the telegram issued on 19-01-07 to complainant by opposite party informing the repossession of the vehicle. Rs.14,500/- is the amount to be repaid as a single instalment. On 30-10-06 complainant has repaid Rs.10,000/-. The vehicle was sold on 17-10-2007 only. Complainant has made no attempt to repay or tender any amount after the repossession of the vehicle. This complaint is filed after repossession of the vehicle and prior to the sale of the vehicle. Complainant has not sought for interim remedy to restrain the sale of the vehicle by tendering payment to opposite party through the Forum. It is clear that complainant was interested only in the litigation and not in the redressal of his grievance against illegal repossession. Further the duplicate Registration Certificate has been issued by second opposite party after serving due notice to complainant. So far no appeal has been filed by complainant challenging the order passed by second opposite party in issuing the duplicate Registration Certificate. From the facts, materials and evidence placed before us we are able to conclude that the complaint is devoid of any bonafideness and merits.

8. In the result, the complaint fails. We make no order as to costs.

Dated this 19th day of March, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1 series : Receipts (30 Nos.) received from 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A2 : True copy of the telegram from 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B14

Ext.B1 : Loan Agreement dated, 22-3-2005 executed between opposite party and

complainant.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the telegram send by 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B3 : Photo copy of the telegram send by 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B4 : Photo copy of the telegram send by 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B5 : Photo copy of the telegram send by 1^st opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B6 : Photo copy of the Valuation Certificate given by Sri.M.Ashraf,

Insurance Surveyor to complainant.

Ext.B7 : Notice dated, 20-3-2007 from 2^nd opposite party to complainant with

copy of 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B8 : Order dated, 14-8-2007 issued by 2^nd opposite party to first opposite party

with copy of complainant.

Ext.B9 : Photo copy of the quotation dated, 22-8-07 from Imbichi Bava

to 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B10 : Photo copy of the quotation dated. 23-8-07 from Abdul Kareem

to 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B11 : Photo copy of the quotation dated, 24-8-07 from M.D. Ravi

to 1^st opposite party.

Ext.B12 : Carbon copy of the receipt dated 17-10-2007 for Rs.4,50,000/-

from 1^st opposite party to M.D. Ravi.

Ext.B13 : Statement of account as on 04-10-2008 by opposite party to complainant.

Ext.B14 : Order dated, 14-8-2007 issued by 2^nd opposite party to first opposite party

with copy of complainant.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER