O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner on 20..10..2004 entered into a hire purchase agreement with the opposite party for the purchase of a MARUTHI CAR BEARING REGISTRATION NO. KL– 5 – R 9280. The petitioner states that at the time of hire purchase transaction the petitioner had given 12 blank signed cheques and the original of the key of the vehicle. On 12..1..2005 petitioner closed the entire transaction between the opposite party. The petitioner there after demanded the cheque leaf and the original key of the vehicle entrusted to the opposite party by the petitioner. The opposite party instead of giving the said document had only given 5 cheques and the NOC. But the original key was not returned to the petitioner. According to the petitioner the act of the opposite party in with helding the original key, after the closure of the transaction, is an unfair trade practice. <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> So the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to return the key entrusted by the petitioner and also he claims Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. According to opposite party petition is without any bonafides and is filed with an intention to harass the opposite party. They admitted that the transaction is settled between the parties. But the case of the petitioner with regard to with helding of the original key of the vehicle is denied by the opposite party. The opposite party contented that they have not received any key from the petitioner at the time of hire purchase . So, they pray for a dismissal of the petition with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner and Ext. A1 document on the side of the petitioner.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The petitioner produced photo copy of the delivery note issued by the popular vehicles and service limited, Kochi, dtd: 20..10..2004 the said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 delivery note it can be seen that only the duplicate key of the vehicle was given to the petitioner at the time of delivery and in Ext. A1 it is shown that duplicate key (H.P) is delivered to the petitioner. From Ext. A1 we can infer that the (HP) shown is the short form of hire purchase. So, the case of the opposite party that they have not accepted the original key at the time of hire purchase is not believeable. The <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> opposite party has not produced any evidence to show that the original of the key was returned to the petitioner. We are of the opinion that with helding, the key of the vehicle after the closing the entire transaction, is an unfair trade practice. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2 <br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, the petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled to reliefs sought for. In the result the opposite party is ordered to return the original key of the vehicle. If the opposite party not return the key as ordered the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Without saying what had happened caused irreperable loss and injury to the petitioner and definitly the market value of the vehicle will diminish if the vehicle have no original key. So, we allow Rs. 5000/- as compensation. The petition is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.<br /> Order shall be complied with within 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of September, 2008.