By: Smt. E.Ayishakutty, Member, (In-Charge of President)
Complainant is a lorry driver and he purchased a second hand lorry 2007 model bearing Registration No KL 55B 2181 from one Mohammad Basheer S/o Ahammadkutty. Muhammad Basheer purchased this vehicle from 1st opposite party. The first opposite party stated that the vehicle was purchased by one Sarafudheen from them and he was not able to pay the finance amount in time, he surrendered the vehicle to opposite party No1 with its registration Certificate and other records. Opposite party No 1 told the complainant that hire purchase termination records are ready and the hire purchase was endorsed by the second opposite party in the registration book. So the complainant agreed to purchase this vehicle and the entire amount was paid on 5/4/2010. Opposite party No1 handed over the original RC, insurance certificate ,tax, and all other documents related to the vehicle. Complainant paid Rs. 5,10,000 and then he spent Rs. 80000 to repair the vehicle. While he submitted all the records before second opposite party the second opposite party directed him to pay the necessary fees to him for transfer of RC and hire purchase cancellation. Meanwhile the owner of the alleged Lorry contacted the complainant and told that the vehicle was forcefully seized by the first opposite party by using gundas and he will not allow to effect the transfer. Complainant contacted opposite party No2 by phone and informed this. He told that only after withdrawing the objection the transfer can be effected. The vehicle is kept idle from 11/2010 and complainant is indebted to many person.
Even after submitting all these facts first opposite party has not taken any steps to correct it . Second opposite party not acted upon the application even after accepting fees. Hence this petition.
Complainant prays to direct Second opposite party to effect the transfer of registration certificate in the name of complainant or order the first opposite party to pay Rs.5,80,000 with 18% interest from 5/4/2010 along with compensation of Rs. 1,00000 and cost for this litigation.
First opposite party and Second opposite party filed separate version. First opposite party denies all the averments and allegations of complainant against him.
The complaint is not maintainable either in low or on facts complainant is not a consumer under consumer protection Act. He submit that complainant has not availed any service from the first opposite party. There is no privity of contract between opposite party No1 and complainant. Opposite party No1 denied the averments of complainant that the complainant along with Abdul Razack and Muhammad Basheer has purchased the vehicle from opposite party No1 He further submits that complainant had never contacted him and opposite party No1 did not know this complainant. He is a stranger to him.
Opposite party No1 submits that one sarafudheen as borrower and one Mymoon as co-borrower and opposite party as lender executed a loan agreement during December 2007 and the said Sarafudheen availed a loan of Rs. 5,5000. for purchasing the alleged vehicle.
Then Mr. Sarafudheen committed default in loan payment and he surrendered the vehicle with its original registration certificate to opposite party No1. There after receiving the quotation from the willing purchasers, opposite party conducted an auction and sold the vehicle for the best possible market value of Rs. 4,32,000 to Mr. Muhammad Basheer on 23/3/2010. After accepting this amount opposite party No1 has handed over the vehicle with its RC, no objection certificate etc to him. Opposite party No1 has no dealings with the complainant. He states that on inquiry with Muhammad Basheer opposite party understood that Mr. Muhammad Basheer has sold the said vehicle to one Abdu Rasack and from whom the complainant has purchased it. Hence there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No1 and hence the complaint is dismissed with cost of opposite party No1. Opposite party No2, joint R.T.O Tirur submits that the alleged vehicle was registered in the name of one Sarafudheen Tirur on 05/01/2008 and having hire purchase agreement with IndusInd Bank Ltd. Cochin. The registered owner Sarafudheen filed an objection against the transfer of ownership of the vehicle on 26/10/2010 and he is not withdrawn the objection till the date. Hence it is impossible to issue clearance certificate and cancellation of hire purchasers agreement. He again submits that the complaint has not submitted any request to him regarding the complaint and he has not expressed his grievance. He states that they will call the complainant for personal hearing and his grievance will be considered.
Complainant filed affidavit with documents as evidence to his case. Ext. A1 to A5 marked on behalf of complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit with documents Ext. B1 marked on behalf of opposite party. No oral evidence adduced both sides.
Points for consideration:-
(i) Whether opposite party is deficient in their service?
(ii) If so what is the relief and cost?
Complainant's allegation is that he had purchased a second hand lorry bearing registration no KL 55B 2181 from one Abdul Razak for Rs. 5,10,000. Then he handed over all the records to the second opposite party for canceling the H.P endorsement from the RC and transfer of ownership to his name and he was directed to remit fee for the same. Complainant had paid a total amount of Rs.675 as fee to the second opposite party. But the original RC owner Mr. Sarfudheen contacted the second opposite party and filed an objection against the transfer of the RC of the alleged vehicle. He told that opposite party No1 forcefully seized the vehicle from him at the help of gundas and hence he will not allow to effect the transfer. Complainant contents that at the time of purchase, the complainant along with Abdul Razack and Mohammad Basheer contacted opposite party No1 and their officials and they promised the complainant that the records of the vehicle is defect free. Opposite party told him that the original RC owner Mr. Sarafudheen was not able to pay the finance amount in time he surrendered the vehicle before them with registration certificate and other records. The first opposite party stated that the hire purchase termination records are ready and the hire purchase was endorsed by the second opposite party in the registration book. Convinced by him complainant purchased the alleged vehicle from Mr. Abdul Razack. Opposite party No1 strongly denies this contention. He states that complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1) (d) of CPAct. There is no consumer relation ship between them. Opposite party No1 states that the vehicle KL55B/2181 was sold to one Muhammad Basheer on 23/3/2010 and handed over its original Registration Certificate, non objection certificate etc to him. Opposite party states that on inquiry with Mr.Muhammad Basheer, he understood that Mr.Muhammad Basheer, sold the vehicle to one Abdul Razack and complainant purchased this vehicle from him. In the complaint itself it is seen that complainant is purchased this vehicle from Abdul Razack and not from opposite party No1. He handed over all the certificates including the hire purchase termination letter also to Muhammad Basheer at the time of hand over the vehicle to him. Muhammad Basheer sold the vehicle to one Abdul Razack. Complainant purchased the above vehicle from Abdul Razack. So there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party No1. The complainant is a stranger to first opposite party. Ext. A3 proves that complainant had purchased the alleged vehicle from one Abdul Razack and this Abdul Razack purchased the vehicle from one Muhammad Basheer. Complainant also admitted this. Hence we hold that complainant has no consumer relationship with opposite party No1 as defined under section 2 (1) d of consumer protection Act. Hence complainant has not entitled to get any relief from opposite party No1. Another allegation raised by the complainant is that the second opposite party not acted upon the application for transfer of RC and hire purchase endorsement even after accepting the fees for the same. Opposite party No2 submit that the vehicle KL 55B 2181 was registered in the name of one Sarafudheen on 5/1/08 and the vehicle is having hire purchase endorsement with opposite party No1. The registered owner Mr. Sarafudheen filed an objection against the transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. Hence it is impossible to transfer the ownership and cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. Opposite party No2 states that complainant has not submitted any request to him regarding the complaint and has not expressed any grievance. Now opposite party No2 submits that he will call the complainant for personal hearing and his grievance will be considered. It is evident from Ext. A3, the sale agreement letter dated 5/4/10 that the complainant purchased the vehicle from one Abdu Razack by paying Rs. 5,10000. Ext. B1 shows that the original RC owner of the vehicle Mr.Sarafudheen surrendered the vehicle to the opposite party No1, the financier due to the failure of loan payment. On perusal of the documents Ext. A1 (s), the cash receipt issued by opposite party No2 to the complainant which shows that complainant has remitted the charges for termination of hire purchase endorsement from the RC and transfer of the ownership to the name of complainant. Complainant states that he had submitted necessary documents to effect the transfer and cancellation of HP endorsement from the RC Ext.A5 shows that opposite party No1 issued the no objection certificate to cancel the HP endorsement on 8/4/2010 it self. Opposite party No2 has no dispute regarding such documents. But he has not taken any steps to solve the grievance of the complainant till the day even after the remittance of prescribed charges for the same.
Such act of a service provider amounts deficiency of service and hence we hold that opposite party No2 is deficient in their service. So complainant is entitled to get relief from second opposite party.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No2 is directed to take necessary actions to effect the transfer of ownership of the vehicle KL 55B 2181 from the name of Mr. Sarafudheen to the name of complainant and we also direct him to cancel the hire purchase endorsement from the RC of the above vehicle in favor of opposite party No1. The order shall comply with in two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order for cost and compensation.
Dated this 10th day of October , 2012.
Sd/-
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A5
Ext.A1 (s) : Payment receipts issued by regional R.T.O. Tirur.
Ext.A2 : The payment receipt of Rs.4,32000/- dated 23/03/2010.
Ext A3 : Vehicle sale letter, dated,05/04/2010.
Ext A4 : Indemnity Bond, dated, 22/03/2010.
Ext A5 : Endorsement cancellation letter issued by opposite party No1, dated,08/04/2010.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Ext. B1
Ext.B1 : Surrender letter, dated, 19/10/2009 given by Sarafudheen to opposite party No1.
Sd/-
E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER, (In-Charge of President)
Sd/-
MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA KOOTHRADAN,MEMBER
