THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C.220/2012

Dated this the 20^th day of March 2013.

 

            ( Present: Sri. G. Yadunadhan, B.A., LLB.                              : President)                       

                             Sri. L. Jyothikumar, B.A., LLB.                              : Member

 

ORDER

By G. Yadunadhan, President:

 

            The petition was filed on 19-05-2012. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Eicher Truck Vehicle bearing No. KL – 11 - AG 762. The said vehicle was financed by 2^nd opposite party. After completion of loan dues the vehicle was sold to one Mr. Murukesan. On 26-3-2012 complainant demanding the No Objection Certificate and other document pertaining to the transfer, but so far not given any paper related to the vehicle. Hence complainant is  seeking relief against opposite party-1 and 2 directing them to submit NOC and other documents related to the  transfer of the vehicle.

            Opposite party after serving notice filed their version stating that the entire loan closed and issued No Objection Certificate. The said Murukesan availed another loan from Namakkal. So hypothecation cancellation could not be handed over to Mr. Murukesan. So complainant is not entitled to get the vehicle transferred in his name, Mr. Murukesan. So complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Opposite party-2 filed their version stating that all the documents submitted for transfer of the vehicle opposite party-2 is ready to transfer the vehicle. It is the duty of the complainant to submit all the documents, but complainant failed to comply the norms. Therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            Points for consideration (1) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? (2) Whether complainant is entitled for any compensation, if so what is the relief and cost?

            Complainant was continuously absent for the last 5 consecutive postings. While perusing the complaint it is the duty of the complainant to submit all the documents pertaining to KL 11 –AG - 762 for the transfer of the vehicle. According to opposite party-1 another loan was availed by showing the vehicle documents from the Namakkal branch. It was not denied by the complainant. To that effect complainant was not adduced any oral evidence. Therefore complainant has no merit in this case, it is liable to be dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court this the 20th  day of March 2013.

Date of filing:19.05.2012.

 

                        SD/-PRESIDENT                                            SD/-MEMBER

//True copy// 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT