Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant against the Opposite party in brief is that he had obtained a loan of Rs.35,000/- from the Opposite party Bank for purchase of a Scooter repayable in 20 monthly equal installments and the last installment payable was on 05.02.2007. That he has repaid the entire loan due to the Opposite party and approached the Opposite party for return of the original R.C. book, but the Opposite party told him that it do not have the original R.C. book with them. In that connection he got issued a legal notice on 28.08.2007, but the Opposite party has not cared to send reply. Therefore, has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to return his R.C. book and to award damages of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 2. The Opposite party has filed version admitting the advancing of loan in favour of the complainant and its total repayment, but denied that the complainant had given the R.C. book to them when the loan was advanced. The Opposite party further denying that it is in the custody of the R.C. book belongs to the complainant has stated that the complainant after clearing the loan amount due to them informed the complainant to approach them with original R.C. book along with a copy attested on 23.02.2007 for discharging the hypothecation and to cancel the entry made in the R.C. book, but the complainant did not turn up and therefore denying all other allegations of the complaint has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Subramanya Raje Urs for Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced a letter addressed by Opposite party to him, the copy of the legal notice got issued to the Opposite party on 28.08.2007. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he had given the original R.C. book to the Opposite party when loan was advanced and that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in not returning the R.C. book?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The fact that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.35,000/- from the Opposite party for purchase of a scooter and that the entire amount of loan has been discharged by paying in installments and that the Opposite party has also issued a clearance certificate to that effect are not in dispute. The only small dispute between the parties is regarding non-returning of the original R.C. Book.<br /> 7. It is the contention of the complainant that at the time of obtaining the loan he had given the original R.C. book to the Opposite party after discharging of the loan, the same is not returned to him, therefore he got issued a legal notice on 28.08.2007 to the Opposite party for returning the R.C. book, is seriously disputed by the Opposite party by contending that the complainant had never given him the original R.C. book and they never returned it. Therefore, when the Opposite party has denied the receipt of the R.C. book or its custody, the burden is on the complainant to prove whether the R.C. book was given to the custody of the Opposite party. Admittedly, the complainant except alleging so in the complaint and also in his affidavit evidence has not placed any acceptable material or evidence to prove that the R.C. book was given to the custody of the Opposite party when the loan was advanced. The vehicle that the complainant had purchased by obtaining loan from the Opposite party was subjected to hypothecation and a shara had been made to that effect in the R.C. book. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that R.C. book was retained by the Opposite party cannot be heard, in view of the fact that the owner of the vehicle who uses the vehicle on road is expected to keep the R.C. book with him and even produce whenever the competent authority or authorities insist upon the production of the R.C. book. Therefore, the claim of the complainant that the R.C. book was with the Opposite party, the Bank has not been proved and no evidence is adduced to prove that it was at any time was given to the custody of the Opposite party. <br /> 8. The letter of the Opposite party produced by the complainant himself dated 23.02.2007 itself discloses that the Opposite party had informed the complainant about discharging of the loan fully and requested the complainant to go to them with R.C. book with a copy of the R.C. book for probably cancelling the hypothecation entry made in that R.C. book and for issuing NOC. The complainant has not denied the receipt of this letter from the Opposite party, but the complainant thereafter kept quite without going to the Opposite party either with the R.C.book or to tell them that the R.C. book was retained by the Opposite party themselves and it is not with him. The complainant without raising his voice to the contents of this letter of the Opposite party without even referring to this letter got issued a legal notice subsequently demanding to return the R.C. Book. The complainant has not come forward to explain as to why and how he kept quite after receipt of the letter of the Opposite party dated 23.02.2007 without protesting or sending a reply by reiterating that R.C. book was with the Opposite party. Hence, on consideration of the entire materials placed before us, the silence of the complainant after receipt of the letter dated 23.02.2007 sent by the Opposite party do establish that there is no truth in the claim of the complainant that he had left the R.C. book with the Opposite party. Thus on considering the grievance of the complainant from any angle, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the R.C. book was in the custody of the Opposite party, it has therefore caused deficiency in its service in not returning it. Hence, we answer point no.1 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. With the result, we pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />