By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President: The case of complainant is that the complainant is the owner and a person in possession of KL-8Z/4895 autorickshaw which was purchased by the complainant from the 2nd respondent by an agreement for sell vehicle for Rs.72,000/-. Rs.32,000/- was given at the time of transfer and balance amount was decided to pay by 29 equal instalments. The 3rd respondent is the R.C. owner of the vehicle. But the 3rd respondent committed default in repayment of the loan with the first respondent and the vehicle was repossessed by first respondent and sold to 2nd respondent. The complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd respondent with agreement to repay the loan. Subsequently the complainant used to repay the loan amount with the first respondent and on 3.5.07 he had remitted Rs.18,700/- and closed the hypothecation. After closing the loan the complainant demanded to get the R.C.Book, fitness certificate etc. from the first respondent. But the first respondent refused to hand over the same by stating Rs.10,000/- is due. But the complainant is not liable to pay any amount. So a lawyer notice was caused to send on 30.11.07 and no reply is sent by first respondent. The first respondent threatened to seize the vehicle forcibly. But they have no right to seize it forcibly. There is deficiency in service on the part of first respondent. Hence the complaint. 2. The counter of first respondent is to the effect that on 3.5.07 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.18,700/- to the first respondent and demanded to close the HP agreement. But the first respondent was not amenable for that since an amount of Rs.15,309/- is due to the respondent as late fee on every monthly instalments. As per the HP agreement the complainant agreed to pay monthly instalments punctually. Having default caused by the complainant it will carry interest at the rate of 36% per annum from the date until the date of payment. But the complainant wilfully caused delay to make payment on every month. Moreover the HP agreement dated 7.1.04 signed by 3rd respondent. The complainant purchased the said vehicle from the 2nd respondent by agreeing to pay the future instalment of the loan. So the complainant is liable to pay monthly instalments without any default. The loan agreement period starts from 7.1.04 and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.18,700/- only on 3.5.07. So the complainant wilfully committed default to pay monthly instalments by way of violating the conditions of HP agreement. The first respondent is entitled to get an amount of Rs.15,309/- from the complainant as late fee. This respondent or his men never attempted to repossess the vehicle from the complainant forcibly. The complainant himself violated the terms and conditions. Hence dismiss. 3. The 3rd respondent filed counter stating that he is an unnecessary party and may be exonerated from the liability. He was the owner and in possession of the vehicle and transferred the vehicle to first respondent. Now he is not the owner and person in possession of the vehicle. The complainant has liability to repay the loan. 4. The 2nd respondent called absent and set exparte. 5. The points for consideration are: (1) Was there any deficiency in service on the part of first respondent? (2) If so, reliefs and costs. 6. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P8 and Ext. R1 on the part of first respondent. 7. Points: According to the complainant, he is the owner and person in possession of KL-8Z/4895 autorickshaw which was under hypothecation with the first respondent. The vehicle was possessed by the 3rd respondent and he was the owner and later by a sale agreement the complainant bought the vehicle from the 3rd respondent with the liability to clear off the hypothecation existing between the first respondent and the 3rd respondent. 8. The complainant stated that as per the terms of the loan he has paid the entire instalments and the last payment was made on 3.5.07 for Rs.18,700/- which was given as full and final settlement of accounts. According to the complainant, after the payment of this amount he had demanded the R.C.book, fitness certificate etc., but those were not delivered by the first respondent. According to the first respondent, there is a balance of Rs.15,309/- as late fee of every monthly instalments. But the complainant stated that he had closed the HP loan on 3.5.07 by paying Rs.18,700/-. 9. In Ext. P6, the lawyer notice issued by the complainant to the first respondent it is stated that the amount of Rs.18,700/- was given as full and final settlement of accounts. The complainant has produced the receipt for Rs.18,700/- and it is marked as Ext. P5. It is stated in Ext. P5 that the particulars HP instalment 30th to 36th dues payment as Rs.18,700/-. There is no endorsement as full and final settlement of account or closure of the HP. In Ext. P6 lawyer notice it is stated that as per the terms of the loan the client has paid the entire 36 instalments. Since there is no denial on this aspect and no reply notice is sent it can be considered that the total instalments will be 36. As per Ext. P5 the entire 36 instalments were cleared by the complainant. The first respondent stated that as per the HP agreement the complainant agreed to pay monthly instalments punctually. If any default caused, it will carry interest at the rate of 36% per annum. The first respondent produced Ext. R1 the balance statement of complainant which would show that a balance of Rs.15,309/-. Ext. R1 would show the date of payments made by the complainant. According to the first respondent if any default caused, it will carry interest at the rate of 36% per annum as per HP agreement. But the HP agreement is not produced by anybody and the complainant has no case that copy of agreement did not serve to him. He also did not deny the rate of interest stated by the first respondent. He failed to adduce oral evidence also. Ext. R1 document is not objected by the complainant. As per Ext. R1 Rs.15,309/- is remaining from the complainant. The various dates of received payment and the payment dates are shown in details in Ext. R1. Since there is no objection with regard to Ext. R1 it is to be believed. The complainant also has no case that it is a fabricated document. According to him, as per Ext. P5 he closed the HP. It did not show like that. So the complainant is liable to pay the balance shown in Ext. R1. 9. In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 14th day of September 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
