This is a complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to supply the key of the vehicle bearing no. WB/60 F-8853 which is till now within the custody of opposite parties, failing which to pay compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- and further praying to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- and other reliefs to the complainant.

The complaint case in short is that the complainant took loan for purchasing the vehicle, bearing No.WB-60F/8853, Maruti Wagnor from the O.Ps. and the O.Ps. also financed on 27.06.2011 to purchase the vehicle. As per the norms of the O.P./ Bank, they have taken one key of the vehicle for security. But after payment of entire installments by cash in proper time the O.Ps. have not returned the key of the vehicle at the time of giving No Objection Certificate to him and thereafter O.Ps. communicated by their letter, dated 14.12.2013 to the Regional Transport Officer and issued Form 35 [See Rule 61(1)], but subsequently the O.Ps. have not handed over the key to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant met several times with the O.Ps. and sent legal notice to the O.Ps. as well as Consumer Finance Division, Indusind Bank Limited, Chennai for getting the same, but in vain. So, finding no other alternative to get relief the complainant has filed this case before this Forum.

On the other hand, in spite of service of notice upon the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 they did not appear in this case, accordingly the case was heard ex-parte against them.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

Giving due consideration to the contents of the complaint petition, documentary evidence on record, hearing, argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant, the Ld. Forum has come to the findings as follows: -

To establish the complaint case the complainant has relied upon an affidavit-in-chief sworn by him upon some documents, which are (i) Form 35 [See Rule 61 (1)], (ii) No Objection Certificate for Lien Endorsement Removal issued by the O.Ps., (iii) Receipt copy of charges for removal of hypothecation issued by the M.V. Department, (iv) Advocate’s letter and his own statement recorded as P.W.1.

It is needless to say the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 against whom the relief claimed by the complainant did not appear before this Forum though the notice of this case had duly been served upon the O.Ps. it is expected as a responsible seller as well as financer of the vehicle they would appear before this Forum after receiving the notices and they would act as per their client’s grievances and would submit if any their own versions regarding the claim of the complainants.

The evidence adduced by the complainant is supporting the case; we find nothing to disbelieve the evidence adduced, as the same have not been challenged. It is essential to mention that the documentary evidence and the oral evidence as mentioned corroborated by each other. Even, none appeared in this case in spite of taking notices to challenge the case from the side of the O.Ps. So, in our opinion the complainant has been able to make out a prima facie case to get an order in his favour as per his prayer. Accordingly this case succeeds.

Fees paid are correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case No. CC - 37/2015 be and the same is allowed exparte against the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 without cost.

That the O.P. Nos.1 and 2 are directed to return the key of the vehicle, which the complainant deposited to the O.Ps. at the time of purchasing the vehicle as the purpose of security on 27-06-2011 and it is further directed to the O.Ps. to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the awarded amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till full realization. Complainant will be at liberty to realize his claim in accordance with law.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.