O R D E R
 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows:- The Complainant purchased a Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle KL- 12C/3179 from the 1^st Opposite Party in the month of December 2005. Through the 1^st Opposite Party, the Complainant availed a loan for Rs.45,000/- from the 2^nd Opposite Party. After registration of the vehicle the Opposite party kept the R.C book with them and assured the Complainant to return it after repaying half of the loan amount. Even after paying Rs.25,000/- the Opposite Parties have not returned the R.C. Book to the Complainant.

2. Then on 15.4.2008 as the Complainant's friend was driving the vehicle, the 3^rd Opposite Party took custody of the vehicle accusing that he was driving vehicle under the influence of alcohol and charged him as per FIR No.88/08. For releasing the vehicle from police custody, the original R.C and other documents were necessary. When the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties to get the R.C book and other papers, they refused to give. As a result, the vehicle was sold at auction by the 3^rd Opposite Party. No notice was given to the Complainant by the 3^rd Opposite Party about the intention of auction. The act of 3^rd Opposite Party is therefore against law.

3. The 2^nd Opposite Party has sent a notice to the Complainant on December 2009 demanding Rs.89,173/- as loan dues. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not helped the Complainant to release the vehicle from the custody of the 3^rd Opposite Party. So the 2^nd Opposite party has no right to demand any dues from the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order detaining the 2^nd Opposite party from collecting the amount Rs.89,173/- from the Complainant. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Party No.1 filed version stating that apart from having sold the vehicle to the Complainant, they have no connection with the matter in dispute. The 2^nd Opposite party did not appear before the Forum and hence set exparte.

5. The Opposite Party No.3 filed version stating that the vehicle was taken into custody by them as it was driven under the influence of alcohol by one Suhail. The casewas registered as CC: 1210/08 at JFCM Mananthavady. The accused admitted the crime and paid fine Rs. 1,500/-. The accused or the R.C owner of the vehicle has not approached with documents to release the vehicle. So the vehicle was taken to the Court and the court entrusted it with the custody of the 3^rd Opposite Party. Even after repeated notices to the Complainant, he has not come with the necessary documents. The auction notice was given to the Complainant and it was informed to the R.T.O Office, Village Office and Panchayath Office. The information was displayed at bus Stand also. But the R.C. Owner did not appear to release the vehicle. The vehicle was auctioned on 31.12.2009, as per the order of JFCM Manathavady. Before the auction of vehicle, the vehicle value was assessed by the RTO Wayanad. With the version, Opposite Party has produced the order of JFCM Mananthavady, the valuation report from the RTO Wayanad and the notice given by the Opposite Party to the R.C Owner.

6. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the Complainant. 1^st Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit. 2^nd Opposite

Party was set exparte. 3^rd Opposite Party has not filed any proof affidavit.

7. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

8. Point No.1:- The Complainant had purchased the vehicle in December 2005. The vehicle was taken into custody by 3^rd Opposite Party on 12.04.2008 ie two years and four month after the purchase of vehicle. The Complainant states that he has remitted Rs.25,000/- towards the loan. But receipt is produced only for payment of Rs.4,750/-. The vehicle was auctioned on 31.12.2009 ie One year and Eight months after it was taken into custody. The auction was as per the order of JFCM Mananthavady. The Complainant alleges that 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties retained the original R.C book with them at the time of registration. The financing agency has no right to retain the R.C book. The loan is endorsed in the R.C book. The financier has no need to keep the R.C book as a security. But in this case, it is seen that the Complainant had not remitted any considerable amount towards the loan and has not made use of the opportunities to release the vehicle from police custody. From the documents it is seen that the Complainant had used the vehicle for Two years and Four months and he has not re-paid the loan amount also. It is evident that the Complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. In these circumstance point No.1 is found against the Complainant.

9. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency found on the side of the Opposite Parties.

The Complainant is not entitled to get any relieves.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 24^th May 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil. .

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Tax Receipt.

A2. Receipt. dt:08.08.2007.

A3. Notice. dt:09.12.2009.

A4. Copy of Notice.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.