DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of January, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.82/2009

Devidasan,

S/o.Sankunni Nair,

Maniyottil House,

Narangapotta,

Mannarkkad. - Complainant

(By Adv.Sreeprakash)

Vs

1. Mr.Krishnan,

Proprietor,

Palakkad Auto Consultants,

Melamuri, Palakkad.

2. Roonwal Finance Limied,

Roonwal Mansion, No.17,

Kalathi Pilai Street,

Sowcarpet,

Chennai 600 079. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.H.Seena, President

Brief case of the complainant:

Opposite party No.1 is the authorised agent of the opposite party No.2 who is dealing with the finance and hire purchase of motor vehicles. During March 2006 1^st opposite party's agent contacted the complainant and offered that they will arrange finance for vehicles on attractive terms. Complainant was directed to contact 1^st opposite party's office at Palakkad. During this period complainant was thinking

about buying a new auto rickshaw for the purpose of his livelihood. When contacted 1^st opposite party agreed to arrange finance for the vehicle which need to be repaid in 36 instalments of Rs.3,050/-. While arranging the vehicle the original registration certificate and one set of key was retained by the 1^st opposite party. Two blank signed cheques, signed printed Hire Purchase agreement form leaving columns blank were collected by the 1^st opposite party at the time of arranging finance facility. An agent of the second opposite party were also present at the time of this transaction. Complainant was regularly making payment of instalments and printed receipts were issued by the 2^nd opposite party for the amount paid. Last three instalment were paid through South Malabar Gramin Bank but no receipts acknowledging this payment were issued. Even after making the entire instalment due, opposite parties has not taken any steps to issue Form 35 clearance for the vehicle. The original Registration Certificate was also dishonestly retained by the opposite parties. According to the complainant the act of opposite parties in not issuing the necessary documents regarding cancellation of finance, will amount to deficiency in service. Complainant is earning his livelihood solely from the income deriving out of this vehicle. Since the RC book is with the opposite parties, complainant is not in a position to produce the vehicle before the Motor Vehicle Authority for periodical test. Without producing the vehicle for test it cannot be used in public places. Test was due on 23/03/09. Hence for the last three months, the vehicle was off the road. Complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.39,600/- with interest @ 12% p.a till date of payment.

1^st opposite party was present in person and version was also filed. 2^nd

opposite party was set ex-parte. 1^st opposite party denies the say of the complainant that he is the agent of the 2^nd opposite party and denies the entire transaction of the complainant with the 1^st opposite party. According to 1^st opposite party, complainant has never approached him for arranging finance, nor the 1^st opposite party has arranged any finance for the complainant. No documents was entrusted by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party as alleged.

The evidence adduced by the complainant consists of the affidavit and Exts.A1 to A31 documents. Opposite party No.1 has not filed any affidavit or documents.

Issues for consideration;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2:

The say of the complainant is that the whole amount towards the loan amount was paid by the complainant. Whole receipts for payment except last three was produced by the complainant. 1^st opposite party has stated in the version that he is not the agent of opposite party No.2 and further no document was entrusted by the complainant with him. But the 1^st opposite party has not filed any affidavit to this effect or produced any supporting documents. Both opposite parties has not

adduced any evidence contrary to that one adduced by the complainant. Further Ext.A1 to A31 go on to show that complainant has repaid the dues and opposite

parties has not adduced any evidence to the contrary.

In view of the above circumstances, we are constrained to allow the complaint. In the result, complaint allowed.

Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. All the documents pertaining to the vehicle are also to be returned. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of January, 2010.

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Pay in slip dtd.30.01.07 of South Malabar Gramin Bank

Ext.A2 to Ext.A31 – Receipts (30 in Nos.)

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost(Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings