<br /> By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts of the case:-<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased a Bajaj Caliber Motorcycle from second opposite party on 18-8-1999. Out of the purchase price Rs.8,545/- was paid by complainant directly and for the balance of Rs.28,445/- finance was availed from first opposite party. It was second opposite party who arranged the finance with opposite party No.1. Complainant handed over blank cheque leaves, stamp papers, Registration Certificate (RC) and duplicate key of the vehicle to second opposite party to be handed over to first opposite party. It was assured that the documents would be returned after repayment of entire amount. On 03-10-05 complainant repaid the entire amount. Opposite parties have not returned the documents entrusted to them till date. Complainant alleges unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. He prays for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and a direction to opposite parties to return the original Registration Certificate.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite parties filed separate versions. It is submitted by first opposite party that no such Registration Certificate or key was entrusted by complainant or anybody as security and hence opposite party No.1 is unable to return the same. That if Registration Certificate is missing complainant can obtain a duplicate copy if necessary. Second opposite party admits sale of motor cycle to complainant but denies any connection with opposite party No.1. It is admitted by opposite party No.2 that part of consideration was received from opposite party No.1 and in turn the Registration Certificate and key was handed over to opposite party No.1 for which due acknowledgement has been issued by opposite party No.1. On receiving lawyer notice from complainant demanding return of Registration Certificate and key, the notice was forwarded to opposite party No.1 for appropriate action. That complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence consists of affidavits filed by complainant, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on behalf of opposite party No.1 and Exts.B2 to B4 marked on the side of opposite party No.2.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Complainant is aggrieved that the Registration Certificate and duplicate key of his vehicle KL10/Q 975 which was entrusted to second opposite party to be handed over to opposite party No.1 has not been returned till date even after repayment of entire loan amount. Opposite party No.1 is the financier and opposite party No.2 is the dealer from whom the vehicle was purchased. Even though first opposite party put forward blanket denial of having received any Registration Certificate or key from complainant or anybody else; the fact of entrustment of these is admitted by opposite party No.2. Ext.B2 is the acknowlegement issued by opposite party No.1 to second opposite party for taking custody of the Registration Certificate. Though in Ext.B2 there is no mention of handing over duplicate key, opposite party No.2 has categorically admitted that Registration Certificate and key was taken custody from complainant to be handed over to opposite party No.1. Undisputedly the document and key has not been returned till date. Counsel for opposite party No.2 argued with much thrust that since the items were handed over to opposite party No.1 they are not in a position to return the same and hence are not liable in any manner. The question to be considered is whether second opposite party had any authority to take custody of the Registration Certificate and key, which are vital to a vehicle, and hand it over to first opposite party. The submission made on behalf of second opposite party is that at the time of delivery of vehicle only a limited sum is paid by complainant and a huge portion of the consideration has to come from the financier. Only on handing over the Registration Certificate and key by second opposite party, the financier will pay the amount to opposite party No.2. While taking custody of the Registration Certificate and key second opposite party has not issued any acknowledgement to complainant. Opposite party No.2 had assured complainant that the document and key were taken as security for opposite party No.1 and would be returned on repayment of loan amount. First opposite party denies any such entrustment. Therefore Registration Certificate and key was not at all received as security by opposite parties. Second opposite party is not privy to the<br /> <br /> <br /> contract of hire purchase agreement between complainant and opposite party No.1. In our view second opposite party had no authority to take custody of the documents and hand it over to first opposite party. Thus the taking custody of Registration Certificate and key from the complainant is illegal. From the arguements advanced on behalf of both sides we are able to infer that for promotion of sales second opposite party (dealer) has played hand in gloves with first opposite party (financier) to help the illegal pressure tactics of financier. In the version and affidavit the irresponsible attitude of opposite party No.1 that if the Registration Certificate is missing, complainant can apply for a duplicate copy is alarming. As per Ext.B2 Registration Certificate books of several persons are seen entrusted to opposite party No.1 and other financiers by opposite party No.2. By this tie up both dealer and financier are benefited. Such a marketing strategy is adopted by both opposite parties for promotion of their trade and business. When the tie up between them is strained the consumer is made to run to different doors to get back his documents. Even after more than two years of repayment of entire loan the Registration certificate and key has not been returned. Counsel for complainant submitted that the vehicle without original Registration Certificate will fetch only less than half of it's market value. From the above discussions we have no hesitation to conclude that both opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. Both are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. This case illustrates how a consumer is exploited by vehicle dealers and financiers. In our view an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation would serve justice to complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. In the result, we allow the complaint and order both opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only). We also order first opposite party to return the Original Registration<br /> <br /> <br /> Certificate and duplicate key of vehicle NO.KL-10 Q 975 to the complainant failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) in addition to the above sum to the complainant. The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 24th day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4<br /> Ext.A1 : Receipt for Rs.1941/- dated, 03-10-05 from opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A2 : Vehicle Sales Invoice for Rs.36,990/- dated, 31-12-2002 from 2nd<br /> opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.A3 : Lawyer notice dated, 10-4-2006 sent by complainant's counsel to <br /> opposite parties.<br /> Ext.A4 : carbon copy of No Objection Certificate sent by 1st opposite party to<br /> Regional Transport Officer,Manjeri.<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 top B4<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the Power of Attorney<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the list of R.C. Holders.<br /> Ext.B3 : Letter dated, 25-4-06 sent by 2nd opposite party to complainant.<br /> Ext.B4 : Letter dated, 23-4-06 sent by 2nd opposite party to 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER