SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)<br /> <br /> The complaint is filed for getting a direction against the opposite party for returning the cheque leaves deposited in the finance company by the complainant.<br /> <br /> The complainant is an auto driver. On 4th August, 2005 the complainant sold out his autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-AB-2834 to the opposite party for Rs.22,500/-. The said autorikshaw was having hire purchase loan from Kairali Finance, Kothamangalam for Rs.15,000/-. Both parties agreed that the entire finance should be closed by the opposite party and the balance Rs.7,500/- was received in cash by the complainant on the same day itself. The vehicle was also handed over to the opposite party on the same day. The complainant's two cheque leaves were deposited in the Finance company as security at the time when the vehicle purchased by the complainant from another person at Kothamangalam. But the opposite party sold the vehicle to some other person and the entire finance is not yet closed. The complainant filed a petition before the S.I of Police, Idukki. The sub Inspector of Police, Idukki called the opposite party to the Police Station, but there was no response. The finance company has filed a criminal complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam U/S 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for Rs.43,000/- against the complainant by using the cheque leaves given to them. The complainant is released on bail from the Judicial First class Magistrate Court in that case. The complainant is a coolie in profession and the only bread winner of his large family. The opposite party deliberately cheated him without paying the hypothecation amount to the finance company and sold out the vehicle to some other person. The complaint is filed for getting compensation against the opposite party and for getting the cheque leaves given to the finance company.<br /> <br /> 2. The opposite party filed written version and admitted that they have purchased an autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-AB-2834 from the complainant. The same auto was again transferred to one Anish, S/o Gopi, Ariyappara, Melukavu by the opposite party. So the liability to close the entire loan amount is also transferred to the said Anish. There is no relationship between the opposite party and the complainant as a consumer. The complainant never hired any service from the opposite party for consideration. The complainant can approach a Civil Court or Criminal Court if there is any laches on the part of the opposite party in the norms of agreement created by them at the time of purchasing the vehicle. The petitioner will not come within the definition of Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> 4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant,. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite party and Ext.R1 was marked. <br /> <br /> 5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting a direction against the opposite party for returning the cheque leaves deposited in the finance company by the complainant. The complainant is an auto driver. He sold out his autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-AB-2834 in 4.08.2005 to the opposite party for Rs.22,500/-. At the time of selling the vehicle the opposite party agreed to close the hypothecation amount of Rs.15,000/- from Kairali Finance, Kothamangalam and the balance amount Rs.7,500/- was given to the complainant. But the opposite party did not close the finance due to the vehicle and sold the vehicle to another person. The complainant has possessed the vehicle from one person at Kothamangalam and at the time of possessing the vehicle the complainant deposited two cheque leaves at Kairali Finance, Kothamangalam. Now the said finance company filed a criminal case U/S 138 of NI Act against the complainant for Rs.43,000/- at Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kothamangalam. The complainant has taken bail from the said Court. Ext.P1 is the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party at the time of selling the vehicle to the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of the complaint filed by the complainant to the S.I of Police, Idukki. The opposite party filed a written version stating that the opposite party is not having any consumer relationship with the complainant.<br /> <br /> The opposite party had already sold this vehicle to one Anish S/o Gopi, Ariyappara, Melukavu. The agreement between the opposite party and the said Anish is .R1. There is no contention in the Ext.P1 agreement about the return of cheque leaves of the complainant. PW1 deposed that there is only oral statement about the return of cheque leaves. Ext.R1 shows that the vehicle is already sold to one Anish. The cheque leaves are with the finance company. The complainant did not make the finance company as a party to the petition. As per Ext.R1 agreement, it is written that the entire hypothecation of the vehicle should be cleared by the said Anish. So we think it is not fit to give a direction to the opposite party to return the cheque leaves. If there is an oral agreement with opposite party and the complainant about the return of the cheque leaves before the witness, and the said agreement is violated by the opposite party, the complainant have the right to file a C.M.P before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court. If the complainant is prosecuted illegally, he has the right to approach Criminal or Civil Court against them with the help of Ext.R1. We think it is not fit to give any direction because the opposite party never hired any service from the complainant for consideration. So the petition will not come in the definition of the consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> As a result, the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2008<br />