By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party to get the original Registration Certificate, original key, connected documents and to pay cost and compensation for the deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased one motorcycle (Platina of Bajaj Company) from the opposite party on 07.08.2006 for Rs.43,205/- and registered as No. KL 12 C 5712 and arranged finance facility for the said amount on a condition to repay the loan amount in 24 equal installment of Rs.1,560/- each. At the time of agreement the opposite party No.1 collected 24 blank cheques and copy of Identity card and pan card etc... From 05.06.2006 onwards opposite party No.1 used to collect installments from the complainant. After registration of the motorcycle the registration certificate is not given to the complainant and it is collected by the opposite parties from the Regional Transport office. Thereafter the complainant deposited the required amount in the account of Union Bank, Sulthan Bathery and opposite parties collected all the installments from the bank through the cheque already given to him. After all the installments were collected by opposite parties, the opposite parties are liable to give the registration certificate and remaining cheques and all the connected papers to the complainant but the opposite parties were not done so. So the complainant filed a petition before the Circle Inspector of police, Sulthan Bathery as Rt No.62/10 and the Circle officer directed the opposite parties to give back the required documents.
3. Thereafter the opposite parties have send a notice to the complainant on 09.12.2009 for clear the dues on a settlement scheme. So the complainant appeared before the hearing authorities and from the adalath which was held from the MGT Building Kalpetta, the opposite parties have convinced that from the complainant no amount was due and opposite party No.3 gave the No Objection Certificate with the signature and seal of opposite party No.3. Before getting this notice the complainant remitted Rs.753/- for insurance premium and the certificate for the same is shown to the opposite parties and convinced them. Hence the complainant prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to give the Registration Certificate, original key and connected documents and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings and also prayed to direct the opposite party No.3 to give the Non Objection Certificate to cancel the Hypothecation endorsement and also direct the supplementary opposite party No.4 to give duplicate registration certificate to the complainant if the opposite party No.1 to 4 is not given the original registration certificate.
4. Notice were served to opposite parties and all the opposite parties entered appearance and 1st opposite party filed version as follows:- This Opposite Party is denying the all averments and allegations in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder as it is false and fabricated. The complaint is opposed to law, lack of weight of evidence and probabilities of case. The complainant filed this petition in an experimental basis without clean hands. This Opposite party admits that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Platina Motor cycle and rest of the allegations is fabricated. The 1st opposite party is not at all connected with other opposite parties and the allegation of arrangement of loan etc is not known to this opposite party. The averment regarding monthly installments is not known to this opposite party. This opposite party not received the price of vehicle and delivered the vehicle with full satisfaction and rest of the allegations in this paragraph is not known to this opposite party. The alleged loan and installments are not known to the 1st opposite party. This opposite party not received the documents from the complainant. No payment received by this opposite party as alleged in the complaint. The averment in second paragraph regarding the receipt of money from the union bank is false and not known to this opposite party and not received any cheques from the complainant. Further stated that this opposite party is only a dealer of vehicle and not financier and not doing any service in the field of vehicle finance. The complainant filed petition before C.I. of police and well understood that the filed petition is false and fabricated. This opposite party not suggested to remit the insurance premium and not insisted for the same. This opposite party is not at all connected with the transaction alleged in the complaint. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. Opposite parties No.2 to 4 filed version stating that the contents of the complainant which are specifically admitted by the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 are only true and rests all are denied by the Opposite Party No.2 to 4. The contents of Para No.1 of the Complaint are matter of record hence the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 does not want to comment upon. As to the contents of Para No.2 of the Complaint the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 stated that the Complainant approached this Opposite Party No.2 to 4 and requested for financial facility for purchase of a two wheeler (Bajaj PLATINA) considering the said request, this Opposite Party No.2 to 4 agreed to extend financial facility to the tune of Rs. 37,440/- (including financial facility of Rs.5440/- for 24 months). Later as per mutual Understanding on 13.08.2006 a Loan Agreement No.449072490 was signed & executed by the complainant. The monthly installment to be paid as per loan agreement per month was Rs.1560/-. The contract period was for 24 months i.e. (from 05.09.2006 to 05.08.2008). The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 further states that the Complainant has never paid any amount to the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 towards the registration charges of the vehicle and same is subject to strict proof on documentary evidence. The Opposite Party No.2 & 4 further state that the Opposite Party No.2 & 4 is not at all liable & responsible for the registration of the vehicle and hence question of payment of registration charges by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 does not arise at all. The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 further states that as per the terms & conditions of the Loan Agreement the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 have received all the amount from the Complainant & the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 has also issued No Objection Certificate to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 further states that the Complainant is a debtor of the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 and thus does not fall under the category of consumer as the relation of DEBTOR & CREDITOR applies here in between Complainant & Opposite Party No.2 to 4. Hence the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are not applicable. The contents of Para No.3 of the complaint are matter of record hence the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 do not want to comment upon.
6. They further stated that, the complainant has never handed over or submitted the original R.C. Book with the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 at the time of execution of the Loan Agreement and same is subject to strict proof. The Opposite Party No.2 to 4 further state that the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 do not have the custody of the said original R.C. Book as the same was not seen handed over by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 at the time of execution of the Loan Agreement or thereafter it is subject to strict proof that the original R.C. Book is in the custody of Opposite Party No.2 to 4. Hence the Opposite Party No.2 to 4 are not at all liable & responsible to return back the original R. C. Book to the Complainant as alleged by the Complainant.
7. Opposite party No.5 filed version and stated that the complainant is the registered owner of Motorcycle bearing Registration, No. KL 12 C 5712 with effect from 29.07.2006. The Registration certificate of the vehicle was issued to Sri. Rajendran after completing the formalities during the year 2006 itself. The vehicle is under hypothocation agreement with Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd, Calicut. The complainant has not approached this authority with any complaints regarding the issue till date. As such this authority has nothing to do with the issue leading to the dispute between the complainant and the other opposite parties in this case. Hence this authority ready to issue a duplicate registration certificate if proper application received.
8. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked. Ext.A1 is the Pass book of the complainant, which shows that 23 installment of Rs.1,560/- is received by 2nd opposite party on producing cheque. Ext.A2 is the Notice issued by the 2nd opposite party for clearing the dues wherein the 2nd opposite party endorsed that “statement verified and all EMI's are cleared”. Which shows that all dues are cleared by the complainant with 2nd opposite party on 19.12.2009. Ext.A3 is the letter given by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on 01.01.2010 to return all the documents with key. Ext.A4 is the Receipt for Rs.753/- paid to 2nd opposite party.
9. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW1. Opposite party No.2 to 4 filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and he is examined as OPW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 are marked. Ext.B1 is the Authorization letter. Ext.B2 is the Account Statement of the complainant prepared by opposite party No.3.
10. On perusing the complaint, version, affidavit, documents and depositions, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
3. Relief and Cost.
11. Point No.1:- The complainant purchased the vehicle on 07.08.2006 and the repayment last date was 07.08.2008. After clearing all the dues the complainant given a request to opposite party No.4 on 24.06.2008, but no reply. After that the opposite party No.2 issued an adalath notice on 19.12.2009 and on that hearing the opposite party No.2 endorsed in the notice that “statement verified and all EMI's are cleared. Then the complainant waited for No objection Certificate till 01.01.2010. Then on 01.01.2010 the complainant sent a letter to the 2nd opposite party to return back the required documents but 2nd opposite party not responded. Then the complainant given a complaint before Circle Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery on 03.09.2010. There also no relief. Then the complainant waited till 30.10.2011 and filed complaint before the Forum on 31.10.2011. Hence the Forum of the opinion that there is a continuous cause of action till 31.10.2011. Hence the complaint is maintainable on the issue of limitation. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.
12. Point No.2:- The Forum is of the opinion that the Registration Certificate is prepared in the complainant's name on 07.08.2006 itself, it is evident from the Registration Certificate particulars given by the opposite party No.5. Usually the Registration Certificate will
be send to the Registration Certificate owner only from the Regional Transport office. If it is not received within the reasonable time the complainant can very well approach before the Regional Transport office to get the Registration Certificate and details regarding the Registration Certificate supply. But so far no action is seen taken by the complainant to get the Registration Certificate from any one till 01.01.2010 and even on 01.01.2010 No request is given to the Regional Transport office also. If he has taken any steps, the Regional Transport office would have taken steps to get the original Registration certificate, if it is not found he could have very well proceed the request for providing a duplicate Registration Certificate. Here in this case also at the beginning the opposite party No.5 has not arrayed as a party, but later on 18.02.2012 only the opposite party No.5 has impleaded as a party to the complaint. In the version filed by opposite party No.5 on 13.04.2012 dated 11.04.2012 clearly stated that “the petitioner has not approached this authority with any complaints regarding the issue till date. As such this authority has nothing to do with the issue leading to the dispute between the complainant and the other opposite parties in this case. Hence this authority ready to issue a duplicate registration certificate if proper application received. The opposite parties No.2 to 4 also stated in their version that they have received all the amount from the complainant and they has also issued No Objection Certificate to the complainant. If this fact is intimated before the Forum with an Interim Application the Forum could have very well give a direction to the concerned authority to issue a duplicate Registration Certificate. The issue regarding the photocopy of pan card and the identity card is not at all an issue. Regarding the issue of No Objection Certificate to cancel the hypothecation endorsement the opposite parties No.2 to 4, after endorsing in the Ext.A2 that “statement verified all EMI's are closed” not issuing No Objection Certificate to the complainant is a clear case of deficiency of service. Even after this complaint, at the time of filing version the opposite parties No.2 to 4 can very well produce a copy of No Objection Certificate before the Forum, that is not done by them till this day.
13. The opposite parties No.2 to 4 collected all the EMI's within 07.08.2008 and the balance amount of Rs.753/- is collected on 19.08.2009. Thereafter they confirmed it on 19.12.2009 as per Ext.A2. After that not issuing No Objection Certificate and if it is given to complainant, not providing a duplicate or a copy of No Objection Certificate to the complainant and not producing it before the Forum is a clear deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties No.2 to 4. Hence the Point No.2 is decided accordingly.
14. Point No.3:- Since the Point No.2 is found against the opposite parties No.2 to 4, they are jointly and severally liable to give No Objection Certificate to the complainant and also liable to pay compensation and cost and the complainant is entitled for the same.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.2 to 4 is directed to give No Objection Certificate to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order. All the opposite parties are also directed not to misuse the cheque, copy of pancard and identity card or any document pertaining to this agreement if it is with them. The opposite party No.5 is directed to cancel the hypothecation endorsement of the vehicle bearing No. KL 12 C 5712 if the No Objection Certificate is not received by you within 30.08.2015 and also directed to issue duplicate Registration Certificate if the proper application is received.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of May 2015.
Date of Filing:31.10.2011. PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Rajendran. Statistic Investigator Grade II.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Naveen. Sales Executive, KVR Motors, Kalpetta.
OPW2. Jibin. Credit and Sales Manager, Bajaj Finance.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Pass Book.
A2. Notice. Dt:09.12.2009.
A3. Copy of Letter. Dt:01.01.2010.
A4. Receipt. Dt:19.08.2009.
A5. Petition Receipt. Dt:03.09.2010.
A6. Copy of Email.
A7. Paper Publication.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Authorization Letter.
B2. Account Statement.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
