SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This is a complaint for seeking return of the RC book and vehicle with compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- booked a Maruthi 800 car on 4.8.2005. The car was delivered on 23.8.06 and he purchased the car paying Rs.1,91,885/- from the 2nd opp.party and the sum of Rs.1,91,885/- was availed from the 1st opp.party by way of Hire Purchase Loan. The car was registered with Reg.No.KL.2-W-1474. On 22.2.2006 the vehicle was involved in an accident and the same was entrusted for repairs. For claiming the repair charges from the insurance authorities the RC book was essential and when the complainant enquired to opp.party 1 and 2 they said that the RC book is not available with them. So he filed a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kottarakkara and there upon the opp.parties appeared before the SI and the first opp.party has given a written statement that the RC book is not with them. Thereafter on 20.7.06 the first opp.party issued a notice to the complainant informing that a sum of Rs.1,96,381/- is in arrears. After receipt of the notice within a week the first opp.party using their gundas forcibly taken the car from the car shed. Only because of the non-receipt of the RC book the complainant could not claim the insurance amount. The vehicle is required by the complainant for taking his mentally retarded son for treatment. The complainant has informed the first opp.party that he is ready and willing to pay the hire purchase amount. But the vehicle was not returned. Hence the complaint. The first opp.party filed a version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant and this opp.party entered into a Hypothecation agreement for the purchase of a vehicle. In the agreement there is an arbitration clause. Therefore this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The first opp.party has given the complainant a vehicle loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on executing hypothecation agreement. The registration of the vehicle was undertaken by the 2nd opp.party. Hypothecation had been noted in the registration certificate. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant by the dealer and it is in his possession. The original RC book was never in the possession of the first opp.party. The allegation that the RC book in original is kept by this opp.party is incorrect. The complainant after taking the loan has committed serious default in repaying the loan instalments. Therefore the vehicle was taken possession as per the agreement after giving due notice to the hirer. The complaint is filed without any bonafide and hence the 1st opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version also contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant purchased a Maruthi 800 car from this opp.party by paying an advance of Rs.10,000/- on 4.8.2005, and thereafter the full consideration was paid by the 2nd opp.party through the first opp.party. The 3 opp.party is a close relative of the complainant and impleaded as promoter of the business for and on behalf of the 2nd opp.party. The 2nd opp.party is the authorized dealer of Maruthi Udyog Limited. The complainant independently availed finance from the 1st opp.party and as per the terms and conditions. The 2nd opp.party has no privity of contract in the matter of higher purchase agreement between the complainant and first opp.party. In spite of the fact that the 2nd opp.party is the authorized dealer and having service centre the complainant has taken the vehicle to another servi9ce station after the vehicle sustained damages ad involved accident. The purchase of the vehicle was promoted by one sales Executive of the 2nd opp.party at Kottarakara. The complainant and the 3rd opp.party approached the Sales Executive at Kottarakara for the Sale of the vehicle which was effected by the 2nd opp.party. The original RC book has been taken by the sale Executive who came along with the 3rd opp.party and the original RC was entrusted to the 3rd opp.party being the representative of the complainant. It is understood that the 3rd opp.party stealthily surrendered the original RC book with some private unauthorized money lenders and availed some amount lby way of loan there from. The complainant filed a petition before the Kottarakara police Station The Kottarakara Police alerted the Sales Executive at Kottarakara who understood the fraudulent action of the 3rd opp.party who admitted the fraudulent act before the Sub Inspector of Police, Kolttarakara in the presence of the complainant and the then Sale Executive of the 2nd opp.party. . Accordingly the police has closed the file. The then sale executive at Kottarakara left the job with the 2nd opp.party and thereafter there is no employee-employer relationship between them. The Original RC book was taken over from the office of the 2nd opp.party by the then Sale Executive, Kollarakara in the presence of the 3rd opp.party and the 3rd opp.party had taken the original RC Book from the then Sale Executive, Kottarakara on the promise that the 3rd opp.party would deliver the original RC Book to the complainant. But instead of doing so committed fraud on the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opp.party. The complainant has humpty number of methods to get the RC book of the vehicle. The complainant did not take any legal steps to process the insurance claim by production of duplicate RC book . The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this opp.party. Hence this opp.party also prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 and P2 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 and D2 are marked. POINTS: There is no dispute that the complainant has purchased a Maruthi 800 car from the 2nd opp.party availing a vehicle loan from the first opp.party. The grievance of the complainant is that his car involved in an accident and for the purpose of claiming compensation from the Insurance Company, Tte RC book of the vehicle is necessary and though he approached the opp.parties they did not give the RC book with the result that he sustained huge loss. The definite contention of the opp.parties 1 and 2 is that they are not in possession of the RC book of the vehicle. DW.1 who was examined on behalf of the first opp.party has stated that they are not keeping the RC book in cases where loan is sanctioned but return the RC Book after noting the hypothecating agreement and retain only a copy of the RC book. The 2nd opp.party who was examined as DW2 has stated that they have handed over the RC book to their Kottarakara Sales Executive from him, the complainant has collected the RC book and so there are also not possession of the RC book of the car purchase by the complainant. The evidence of DWs.1 and 2 remains unimpeached, since they were not cross examined by the complainant. In fact the complainant has admitted in cross examination in page 2 that on the basis of his complaint filed before the police station, Kottarakara, opp.party 3 has come there and he as agreed to give the RC book and necessary endorsement has also been made in this regard by opp.party 3 at the Police station. To use of his own words “3rd opp.party alYfSa SelhJc\ c\SM,rjH ir\rkxxk mjulR R.C. Book fglsar\rkeyukdukA endorse svu\fk eyB\Bj}kn\mk So it is obvious that opp.parties 1 and 2 are not in a possession of the RC book. According to the first opp.party the complainant after availing the loan has not paid even a single instalment towards repayment. Though PW.1 would say that he has made repayment he has not produced any documents to establish that contention. Even in the complaint he has endorsed that he intent to produce invoice copy of receipts evidencing payment of instalment. But nothing was produce even at the time of evidence.. He has admitted having received Ext.P1 and P2 letters issued by opp.party 1. informing him that there is huge arrears and that the first opp.party is intenting to proceeds against him. Despite receipt of Ext.P1 and P2, the complainant did not make any payment is obvious from his admission in cross examination at page No.3 wherein he has categorically stated that he did not clear the arrear nor sent any reply. To use his own words “\fkmGr\rk P1 Luv\vkdkmjCjd Lmv\vjh\h reply sdlmkf\fjh\h.” He has admitted that there is arrears. In this context it is worth pointing out that the transaction between the first opp.party and the complainant is one under a Hire purchase agreement and when the repayment of the loan is defaulted the financier has every right to repossess the vehicle through procedure laid down by law. In this case DW.1 has stated that they have seized the vehicle as per a law and that statement stands unimpeached as the complainant has not cross examined DW.1. From the evidence now before us it is obvious that after availing the Hire Purchase loan the complainant has not remitted even asingle instalments towards repayment. For all that has been discussed above we hold that the complainant failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Point found accordingly. In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. - Vikraman Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Notice P2. – Notice dated 30.10.2006 List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Praveen DW.2. – Biju.K.R. List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Copy of Advocate notice D2. – Delivery order. | 
