The HDFC Bank Ltd., OP Nos. 1 and 2, in CC No. 58/12 has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986, and, it is directed against order dated 15/12/14 of the Lr. North Goa District Forum at Porvorim.

2.    The parties to this appeal are being referred to in the names as they appear in the cause title of the complaint.

3.     The undisputed facts are as follows:

4.    The HDFC Bank Ltd. is successor to Centurion Bank Ltd.  OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar had purchased a Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle registered under NO. GA-04-A-3936 and hypothecated the same to the said Centurion Bank Ltd., Panaji, in view of loan taken by him from the said Bank.

5.    OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar owed Rs. 7000/- to the complainant and being unable to pay the same to the complainant, the complainant took possession of the said motorcycle.  This was on or about 24/09/04.

6.     The Centurion Bank Ltd., seized the said motorcycle on 7/6/05 from the possession of the complainant.  As per letter dated 27/6/05 addressed by the Centurion Bank Ltd. to the Siolim police outpost, the complainant willfully surrendered the bike on coming to know about the hypothecation.  On 29/6/05 the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 16,500/- to the HDFC Bank and according to the complainant this was paid towards the outright purchase of the said motorcycle with  the  assurance  that  the  vehicle  documents  would  be handed

over to the complainant.  The Centurion Bank Ltd., issued a letter dated 29/06/05 which reads as follows:

“JUNE 29, 2005

To Whomsoever It may concern

This is to certify that we have sold one hero Honda Splendor bearing registration no. GA-04-A-3936, Engine No: 03B18E07716, Chassis No: 03B20F13041 to Mr. Lawrence Braganza, resident of H.No: 760/6, Baman waddo Siolim Bardez Goa.

Necessary transfer formalities are underway.

Thanking you,

For CENTURION BANK LTD

                     sd/-

Authorised Signatory

7.    Alleging that the HDFC Bank had failed to honor their commitment, the complainant sent a notice dated 9/1/12 followed by letter dated 3/2/12 calling upon the HDFC Bank to handover to the complainant all the relevant documents (RC book), etc. in respect of the said motorcycle, within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the notice, failing which he would be constrained to initiate the necessary legal proceedings against the Bank.   

8.     The complaint came to be filed on 12/3/12. It was contested by the HDFC Bank by filing a written version as well as by OP No. 4, also by filing a written version, but was not contested by OP No. 3 Shri. Dinesh Kinalkar. 

9.    The Lr. District Forum, by final order dated 15/12/14, impugned in this appeal, has held that the complainant did not have any issue against the said bike but he wanted the bike to be transferred in his name which the OPs failed to do.  The Lr. District Forum further observed that even after selling the said bike in auction and issuing the certificate dated 29/06/2005, they failed to carry out the necessary formalities to transfer the said bike in the complainant’s name and that it was the duty of the Bank (OP Nos. 1 and 2) to complete the formality, but they ran away from their responsibilities.  The Lr. District Forum also observed that the Bank are the original sellers of the said bike and are responsible for handing over the documents of the said bike which admittedly belonged to OP No. 3 and which was hypothecated to Bank and who had seized the same. The Lr. District Forum, therefore, directed  OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally to transfer the motorcycle in favour of the complainant besides awarding compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and costs of Rs. 25,000/-. 

10.     We have heard Shri. R.R. Chodankar, lr advocate on behalf of the Appellant–Bank and the complainant in person.  Shri. Chodankar has placed reliance on the decision of this State Commission dated 3/1/13 in FA No. 19/10 filed by M/s. Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited, as well as order dated 17/11/14 in FA No. 82/14 filed by the HDFC Bank Ltd. 

11.     We are of the view that the said two decisions are not at all relevant to the facts of the case at hand.  A fact here or a fact there can always make miles of difference.  There is nothing on record to substantiate the claim of the HDFC Bank that the motorcycle was purchased by the complainant in an auction.  The HDFC Bank failed

to produce any documents from the Centurion Bank Ltd., to substantiate such a claim.  On the other hand, the letter dated 29/06/05 issued by the Centurion Bank Ltd., clearly reveals that the motorcycle was sold to the complainant.  Presumably, as the said motorcycle was in possession of the complainant, after the same having been taken over by him from OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar, its registered owner, that the Centurion Bank allowed the complainant to hold on to the same on payment of Rs. 16,500/- which was presumably due in the loan account of the said OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar.  The Centurion Bank Ltd., and now HDFC Bank Ltd are bound by the said letter dated 29/06/05 and therefore were bound to complete the transfer formalities so that the complainant had the registration certificate issued in his name.

12.     Be that as it may, we find from the record, that after seizing the said motorcycle and selling the same to the complainant, the HDFC Bank filed an application in Form 36 to OP No. 4, the registering authority, to issue a fresh registration certificate in their name i.e. in the name of the financier, and, pursuant thereto OP No. 4, the registering authority, addressed a letter to OP No. 3, Dinesh Kinalkar, the registered owner, in November 2014 informing him that the HDFC Bank had requested them to cancel the certificate of registration and to issue a fresh certificate of registration in their name.  This notice in Form 37 was sent to OP No. 3, Dinesh Kinalkar by registered post and there is nothing on record to suggest that the said OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar had represented against the said notice in Form 37.  The HDFC Bank replied to the said notice by letter dated 5/12/14 stating that they were not in possession of documents of repossession and that the loan agreement was already given to their office alongwith Form No. 36 and further stating that they were ready to pay necessary applicable fees so that the vehicle can be transferred in their name so that the vehicle could be further transferred in the name of the complainant. 

13.     No further action appears to have been taken thereafter either by OP No. 4, the registering authority, or for that matter the HDFC Bank.  Although we have not issued any notice of this appeal to OP Nos. 3 and 4, we are confident that OP No. 4, registering authority, will issue fresh registration certificate immediately in the name of the Bank, as sought for by them, and in case it is permissible in law, such a certificate could now also be issued directly in the name of the complainant himself. 

14.     We are inclined to modify the impugned order to the extent that OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar has also been made liable to transfer the motorcycle in the name of the complainant, as the procedure to transfer the motorcycle in the name of the complainant has to be complied with by the HDFC Bank and OP No. 4 the registering authority.  OP No. 3 Dinesh Kinalkar appears to have not protested first, his motorcycle being taken over by the complainant, and then being sold to the complainant by the Centurion Bank.  He did not even contest the proceeding nor objected to notice in Form 37. 

15.     The complainant has stated that he was much harassed by HDFC Bank who sought adjournments before the District Forum as many as on 49 occasions.  Considering the same, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order except to say that the compensation and costs ordered to be paid shall now be paid by the HDFC Bank (OP Nos. 1 and 2).  With the above observations we proceed to dismiss the appeal, and, considering the facts, with no order as to costs.