KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO: 682/2009 JUDGMENT DATED:20..04..2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SHRI.M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., Thottattil Complex, Gandhi Junction, : APPELLANT Chulliyoodu road, Sulthanbattari. (By Adv: Sri.Poovappally.M.Ramachandran Nair) Vs. M.Govindan, S/o Kelunambiyar, Surabhi, Kunnamangalam, Wayanadu.P.O, : RESPONDENT Mananthavadi Thaluk. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties in CC:146/08 in the file of CDRF, Wayanad. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed a loan of Rs.1,50,000/- hypothecating the tractor purchased. According to him he remitted the entire dues by 22/12/2207. When he sought for return of the RC he was told that the same is missing and the opposite parties wanted him a supporting letter to get the duplicate RC. According to him there was a delay of more than 12 months to get the duplicate RC. He had expended considerable amounts for getting the duplicate RC. As he could not ply the tractor during the period he had incurred a loss of Rs.50,000/-. Hence he has sought for a sum of Rs.63,400/- etc towards the damages. 3. Opposite party in the version filed has denied the case of the complainant that the RC was lost from their possession. According to them the RC book was lost from the possession of the complainant and they have only helped him to get the duplicate RC. According to the opposite party a sum of Rs.18,500/- more is due to the opposite party. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.A1 to A9. 5. The Forum has held that the opposite parties have collected an excess of Rs.30,530/- and hence directed the appellant to return the above amount as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 6. It was contended by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant had no such case that the excess amount was collected by the opposite party. Hence the order is liable to be set aside. 7. Of course we find that the complainant has no such contention that excess amount was collected by the opposite party. Although he has contended that the RC was not returned and he had to obtain a duplicate RC and that for the same there was considerable delay and that he had incurred considerable loss. Even if the above contention is upheld there is no justification for the order that excess amount has been collected as the complainant has no such case. 8. In the circumstances the order to refund Rs.32,530/- is set aside. The rest of the order of the Forum is sustained. The appellant is directed to pay the amount of damages of Rs.20,000/- within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of this order. The appeal is allowed in part as above. Office will forward a copy of this order to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VL. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER | 
