By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

Complaint in short is as follows: -

1.            The complainant decided to purchase a second-hand track cruiser as part of self-employment purpose.  He contacted the first opposite party knowing that they used to sell second hand vehicles with finance arranged by them.  The first and second opposite parties contacted and informed the complainant that a vehicle bearing registration No. KL 09-T 8413 is seized by them and they will sell the same to the complainant with all correct records. The vehicle bearing registration No. KL -09 T- 8413 was purchased by the complainant on 17/03/2015 from the first opposite party and the vehicle is of 2016 model. The complainant paid Rs.1, 50,000/- by cash and the first opposite party stated that a loan of Rs.2, 25,000/- is included towards the price of vehicle. In order to sanction the loan, the first opposite party directed the complainant to put signature in many printed forms, blank forms, so many blank records, copy of cheque leaf. The opposite parties also obtained 3 cheque leaves, two stamp paper etc from a friend of complainant.  It was informed that the interest is calculated at flat rate and the complainant is bound to pay the interest and principal amount in 36 monthly instalments. The 36 installments can be paid at the rate of 9,063/- per month for convenience. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant from the yard. The vehicle was in the name of earlier owner and the tax, insurance, permit was paid up to June 2015 only.  The first and second opposite parties stated that they will hand over the records later. But they were not able to change ownership in to the name of complainant and the endorsement with the third opposite party.  The vehicle was not able to ply on road due to dispute with earlier owner and first and second opposite parties since 2015 June onwards.

2.         The complainant submit that the vehicle was not able to ply on road due to want of records such as RC, insurance, fitness, tax etc. There was dispute between the first and second opposite parties and the earlier owner of the vehicle.  The complainant was put to suffer irreparable loss and hardship even after spending huge amounts. The complainant is a driver and for his lively hood the vehicle was purchased as stated above. The first opposite party stated that the complainant can pay the instalments and once the price of Rs.2, 15,000/- is exhausted they will issue termination records. The vehicle was kept idle as directed by the first opposite party.  During 2016 June the earlier owner made a complaint before the sub inspector of police Otttappalm and the vehicle was taken in to custody by them.  The dispute lasted a year and the vehicle was in police station. Finally, the first opposite party paid money to the earlier owner to settle the issue.  The first opposite party directed the complainant to pay the tax, kshemanidhi amounts etc. to settle the issue.  The matter was discussed and settled in mediation. The complainant was forced to pay Rs.48, 500/- towards tax, fitness fine Rs. 34,400/- payable by the first and second opposite parties as per the settlement.   The complainant already spent a lot to purchase the vehicle, paid most of the amount by instalments and many costly repairs were done to make the vehicle road worthy. The complainant was a poor person and he thought that the first and second opposite party is reliable. The first and second opposite parties stated that they will close the loan on payment of Rs.2, 15,000/- by the complainant before 15/03/2018.

3.         The complainant paid the borrowed amount by instalments.  The opposite party adjusted Rs.2, 15,000/- towards value of the vehicle plus the amount of Rs. 1, 50,000/- paid by the complainant initially.  The vehicle was off the road due to dispute with the earlier owner and only after 30/12/2017, the vehicle was able to ply on road. The complainant submit that he paid an amount of Rs.2, 17,435/- plus Rs.9,063/- deducted when the loan was granted.  Apart from this amount, Rs.82, 900/- was paid towards the tax etc for the disputed period. The complainant submits that now the officials of the opposite party are changed and so there was no records for the said agreed conditions and the officials denied the agreed conditions.  The first opposite party demands Rs.80, 000/- to close the loan and so they are demanding illegal amounts. The opposite parties were threatening the complainant.   The receipt issued by the first and second opposite parties will not reveal any details and all payment is shown as hire purchase advance. There was no higher purchase agreement entered between the complainant and the first and second opposite parties, still they demanded illegal amounts.

4.         The first and second opposite parties endorsed the loan agreement in the registration certificate of the vehicle before third opposite party only on 30/12/2017 with forged records.  The loan was taken on 17/03/2015 and the first and second opposite party forged records and entered higher purchase endorsement on 30/12/2017 with ulterior motives.   The complainant paid Rs.2,17,435/- till date for the balance amount of the vehicle.  The first opposite party along with Goondas came to the house of the complainant on 03/07/2018 at about 10.am in the morning and stated that the vehicle belongs to the first and second opposite parties and threatened the complainant. The complainant submits that the officials of the opposite parties one and two are changed and they are now doing a hide and seek game to harass the complainant.

5.         The complainant alleges that the opposite parties committed willful latches, deficiency in service, illegal acts and thereby caused   irreparable loss and hardship to the complainant. The complainant was put to suffer damages and mental hardship. The first and second opposite parties committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to harass the complainant. Hence the prayer of the complainant is that to direct first opposite party to issue higher purchase termination letter regarding vehicle No. KL- 09 –T- 8413 and if the first and second opposite parties are not issuing the higher purchase termination letter, order the third opposite party or concerned officer in his office to cancel the endorsement in the registration certificate of vehicle KL- 09-T- 8413. The complainant further claims compensation of Rs.2, 00,000/- with cost of the proceedings.

6.         On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.  The opposite parties one and two denied the   entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

7.         The opposite party one and two admitted that the complainant had approached them to purchase vehicle No.KL 09 T 8413 and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 17/03/2015. The complainant remitted Rs.1, 50,000/- and availed loan of Rs. 2, 25,000/- for the vehicle. But the allegation that at the time of availing loan signed blank papers, printed forms along with ID card and stamp papers, 8 cheque leaves are handed over to the opposite parties are not correct. Moreover, the allegation that three blank cheque and two stamped papers were also obtained from the complainant is incorrect. The averment that the complainant was allowed to remit   monthly instalments of Rs.9,063/- through 36 installment is not correct. The loan agreement was to re-pay the loan amount through 36 equal installments of Rs.9063/- from 17/04/2015.

8.         The opposite parties admitted that the tax, insurance, and the expenses for permit of the vehicle were remitted up to June 2015 on the day of the delivery of vehicle i.e on 17/03/2015.  At that time, believing the complainant the original RC, no objection Certificate and insurance certificate along with tax receipt and other documents were given to the complainant. The complainant had agreed to do the necessary steps to transfer the ownership. But the complainant failed to do so but he used the vehicle for his personal purpose. The opposite parties denied the allegation that due to fault on the side of opposite parties, the complainant could not transfer the vehicle document. The opposite parties denied the averment that the complainant could not use the vehicle due to want of vehicular details like RC book, tax, insurance certificate, tax etc.

9.         The opposite parties submitted that there is no dispute between the prior RC owner of the vehicle.   The allegation that the vehicle was in the police custody of the Ottapalam police based on the complaint filed by the earlier owner is incorrect. The vehicle was even for a single day not in the police station and there was no occasion to seizure the vehicle in the police station. The opposite party submitted that the complainant was given all the vehicle documents including No Objection Certificate to the complainant. But the complainant failed to do things and so there was revenue recovery proceedings initiated against the previous owner of the vehicle and so he filed a complaint before the police   and as a result the complainant was asked to produce the vehicle before the police station.  It is further denied that the complainant remitted Rs.48, 500/- towards tax and Rs.34,400/- towards fitness. The opposite parties had handed over original RC book, NOC, and other documents to the complainant but the complainant did not taken steps to transfer the vehicle in his name and did not submit RC book to the opposite party. The complainant was using the vehicle with the object of making exorbitant profits without remitting tax and without obtaining fitness certificate, which resulted revenue recovery proceedings against previous owner. 

10.       The opposite parties denied the allegation of the complainant that he spent huge amount to make the vehicle road worthy and the vehicle was in Ottapalam police station for about one year etc.  The vehicle was not laid up in police station even for a single day.  The complainant did not produce any document to show the same. The statement that in case of remitting Rs.2, 15,000/- on or before 15/03/2018, the opposite parties had agreed to close the loan is false one.  The statement that he remitted Rs.2, 15,435/- and Rs. 9,063/-, - which is towards the entire loan amount and thereafter he paid Rs.82, 900/- towards tax is baseless. The opposite parties submitted that they remitted the fine and tax due to revenue recovery proceedings against previous owner and thereafter fitness certificate of the vehicle was taken.   The opposite parties denied the allegation that due to dispute between the earlier owner and the opposite parties, he could not use the vehicle in public till 30/12/2017. The complainant used the vehicle without any interruption. The installment payment was not made duly by the complainant which can be seen from the payment chart. If there was any complaint during those days itself, the complaint is barred by limitation. The opposite party submitted that though the default was made by the complainant, to avoid police action the first and second opposite parties remitted arrear tax, and fine before the police. The allegation that officers of the opposite parties are fresh handers are not correct.

11.       The complainant is liable to remit all the monthly instalments on or before 17^th of every month and the complainant signed in the H P agreement understanding the terms and conditions of the agreement. The opposite parties admitted that the higher purchase agreement was signed between the complainant and the opposite parties on 17/03/2015. But the vehicle was transferred in the name of complainant only on 30/12/2017 is not correct.  All the vehicle documents were handed over to the complainant for transferring the RC and to make HP endorsement.  The complainant had agreed to produce R.C copy before the opposite parties thereafter, the complainant failed to do so.  The complainant was defaulted and thereby cheated the opposite parties.  The opposite parties caused to remit tax and fine and thereby sustained burden due to the act of the complainant.  The opposite parties denied the allegation that the first opposite party along with goondas came to the residence of complainant on 03/07/2018 and threatened the complainant.  The opposite parties further submitted that the complainant was liable to remit the last instalment on 17/03/2017. But he remitted only 22 installments instead of 36 instalments. The complainant making attempt to escape from the liability by filing the present complaint with misleading facts.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant working abroad for the last one year and he had transferred the vehicle to somebody. Hence it is submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and there is no merit in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

12.       The third opposite party also filed version. The third opposite party admitted that the vehicle KL 09-T-8413 is a 2006 model contract carriage with seating capacity 10 in all and the owner ship of the vehicle transferred to the complainant Rajesh K.T S/o Chandran, Kottathodi house, Oorakam melmuri P.o, Puthenpeedika , Malapppuram Dist. with effect from 22/11/2017 and also issued with a contract carriage permit valid up to 08/01/2023. Vehicle tax in respect of the vehicle is paid up to 31/12/2019.  The complainant entered in to higher purchase agreement with BRD securities limited Mankara Complex, Kizhakethala, Malappuram with effect from 30/12/2017 and on receipt of application in form No.34 with the specified fees, the hypothecation entry made in the registration certificate as specified in section 51 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1989.

13.       As per the provisions specified in subsection (3) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, an application for cancelling the higher purchase agreement may be made in form 35 duly signed by both the financier and the registered owner, accompanied by the original registration certificate and copies of valid insurance and PUCCA certificate, after remitting the required fee.

14.       The complainant and opposite parties one and two filed affidavit and documents.  The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is series of cash receipts. Ext. A2 is copy of registration certificate of vehicle No. KL 09-T-8413. Ext. A3 is memo issued by joint RTO Tirurangadi dated 09/05/2018.  The documents on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 and B2.  Ext. B1 is authorization letter dated 28/05/2020. Ext.B2 is copy of hire purchase statement (debtors account). The third opposite party did not file affidavit.

15.       Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit, and documents. The complainant filed argument note also.

16.       The following points arise for consideration: -

1) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties    

      one and two?

2) Relief and cost?

17.       Points 1 and 2

            The opposite parties one and two admitted that the complainant purchased vehicle No. KL-09-T-8413 from the opposite parties on 17/03/2015. It is also admitted that the complainant remitted Rs.1, 50,000/- and availed loan of Rs.2, 25,000/- from the opposite party.  But denied the allegation of collecting blank papers including ID card and signed cheque leaves.  The agreement was to repay the loan agreement through 36 equal instalments of 9,063/- rupees per month.   The opposite parties further admitted that the vehicle had insurance coverage up to 2015 June and tax and permit at the time of delivery of the vehicle.

18.       The opposite parties submitted that the registration certificate along with no objection certificate, insurance certificate and tax receipt was handed over to the complainant for endorsement of HP. But the complainant was not taken steps to transfer the vehicle in his favor and to endorse HP agreement.

19.       The contention of the opposite party is that they had availed loan to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle. But the opposite party failed to produce loan agreement to peruse the terms and condition of the transaction. The opposite parities further contended that the all the vehicular documents were handed over to the complainant at the time of delivery of vehicle for transferring the registration certificate in favor of the complainant and also to get endorsed the higher purchase agreement. But the transfer of the vehicle has been affected only on 30/12/2017. The explanation given by the opposite parties for the delay caused in transferring RC in favor of the complainant   cannot be accepted. The vehicle is not a pakka one but a second hand one i.e pre-owned. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 17/03/2015 and thereafter HP endorsement was made only on 30/12/2017 i.e after two years and nine months. There is no document from the side of opposite party to justify the contention that the delay was caused due to the act of complainant. On the other hand, the complainant submitted that there was a dispute between the opposite parties and the previous owner which led to file police complaint and further action.   The complainant submitted that the dispute between  previous owner Mr. Muhammed Shaji and the opposite parties  settled by making payment   of money to the earlier  owner of the vehicle by the opposite parties.  The complainant submitted that the first opposite party directed the complainant to pay the tax, kshemanidhi amounts etc. to settle the issue and thereby the complainant was caused to pay altogether 82,900/- towards the same.  But the complainant could not produce document to show for the payment of settlement amount as stated.  The complainant produced Ext.A1 series for payment of instalment amount which reveals payment of excess of monthly instalments on various occasions.  But the documents produced by opposite parties, Exhibit B2 higher purchase statement (debtors account) does not find the payment made by the complainant through Ext. A1 series. The complainant produced Ext. A3 “Memo” issued by third opposite party demanding additional tax or to surrender the registration certificate of the vehicle and notice of steps to recover the dues under revenue recovery act.

20.       The opposite parties claimed that they cleared the   revenue recovery liability but no document has been produced. The contention of the complainant is that the dispute between the earlier owner and the opposite parties were not settled till 30/12/2017 and so the opposite parties could not transfer the vehicle   in favor of the complainant.

21.       It is also relevant to note that the opposite party has taken a contention the complainant remitted only 22 installments and huge amount is due from the complainant to the opposite party.  But the opposite parties have not stated the exact amount of liability and under what grounds.    The opposite party did not produce any document, except Ext. B2 so called   hire purchase statement (debits account). The opposite party did not produce loan agreement as stated in the version or hire purchase agreement which is basis of Ext.B2 document. The opposite party has not taken steps to realize the arrears from the complainant. It is already mentioned that they have not taken steps to transfer the registration certificate in favor of the complainant and also to endorse the hire purchase agreement on the registration certificate of the vehicle. The opposite parties failed to deliver  Registration Certificate of the vehicle to the complainant at the time of sale of vehicle. We do not accept the version of opposite parties that the complainant willfully retained all the vehicular documents without producing before the RTO for transferring the vehicle in his favor. So the perusal of affidavit and documents of the parties, we accept the case of complainant and finds that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties,  in the matter of non-issuance of HP termination letter regarding the vehicle number KL-09-T-8413.   The opposite parties one and two are liable to issue HP Termination letter in respect of vehicle No. KL -09-T-8413 in favor of the complainant.

22.       The complainant submitted that due to none delivery of vehicular documents and there by non-transferring of registration certificate in favor of complainant caused inconvenience, hardship and financial loss to the complainant. It is submitted that the vehicle was idle for a long period and he could not use the vehicle though it was in possession of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled reasonable amount as compensation on account of unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties and thereby caused in convenience and hardship to the complainant. We consider that rupees 50,000/- will be reasonable amount as compensation and direct the opposite parties one and two to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused in convenience and hardship to the complainant. The first and second opposite parties are liable to issue no objection certificate in respect of the vehicle No. KL-09-T-8413 to the complainant forthwith and if the opposite parties one and two fails to do so they are liable to pay Rs.1, 00,000/- to the complainant on that count also.  The third opposite party is directed to cancel the HP endorsement from the registration certificate of vehicle No. KL-09-T-8413 on receipt of due application from the complainant and in case the first and second opposite parties fails to issue hire purchase termination letter, the third opposite party is further directed to cancel the endorsement of hire purchase in the registration certificate of vehicle No.KL- 09-T 8413, even without no objection certificate. The opposite parties one and two is also liable to pay cost of Rs.10, 000/- to the complainant.

23.       Hence, the Commission allow this complaint as follows: -

1. The opposite parties one and two are directed to issue HP termination letter to the complainant in respect of vehicle no. KL–T-09- 8413 and if the opposite parties fail to do so they are directed to pay Rs.1, 00,000/ (Rupees one lakh only)-as compensation to the complainant. 
2. The opposite parties one and two are directed to pay Rs.50, 000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused in convenience and hardship to the complainant.

3) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as   cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

4)   The third opposite party is directed to cancel the HP endorsement from the registration certificate of vehicle on receipt of due application from the complainant and in case the first and second opposite parties fails to issue no objection certificate, the third opposite party is directed to cancel the H P endorsement from the registration certificate of vehicle no. KL-09-T- 8413 even without no objection certificate.

The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay interest @rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till date of payment.

Dated this 11^th day of May, 2023.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1: Cash receipts (series)

Ext.A2: Copy of registration certificate of vehicle no. KL 9-T-8413.

Ext A3: Memo issued by joint RTO Tirurangadi dated 09/05/2018. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 and B2

Ext.B1: Authorization letter dated 28/05/2020.

Ext.B2: Copy of hire purchase statement (debtors account).

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH