By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The complaint in brief is as follows.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the agreement owner of a Bajaj Autorikshaw bearing No.KL 12 A 8431. The 1st Opposite Party is the financier, the 2nd Opposite Party is the R.C owner and the 3rd Opposite Party is the agreement owner who sold the Autorikshaw to the Complainant the purchase was effected in terms of agreement executed between the 3rd Opposite Party and the Complainant with the knowledge of 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties. The price of the vehicle was Rs. 52,000/- and Rs.30,000/- was the loan amount and remaining Rs.22,000/- was given in <br /> cash readily to the 1st Opposite Party. The terms of sale was such that the loan amount is to be<br /> - 2 -<br /> repayed in 22 monthly installments of Rs.1,875/- as the installments amount. The chart explains the due dates and the amount in installments were given to the Complainant by the 3rd Opposite Party. The Complainant remitted Rs.43,125/- in total towards the 23 installments of Rs.1,875/- to the 1st Opposite Party. The liabilities with the 1st opposite party was cleared by the Complainant. The Complainant is in use of this vehicle to eke out his life and his family. The Complainant approached the 1st Opposite Party and the 3rd Opposite Party to get the no objection certificate to renew the taxi permit, the Opposite Parties are not ready to meet the request of the Complainant. <br /> <br /> 2. The Opposite Party has done deficiency in service there may be an order directing the 1st Opposite Party to give no objection certificate to the Complainant in connection with KL 12 A 8433 Bajaj Autorikshaw. An order directing to R.T.O, Wayanad to transfer the R.C in the name of the Complainant and to renew KL 12/A 8433 in favour of the Complainant and along with cost of this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Party No.1 and 3 are already declared exparte.<br /> <br /> 4. Opposite Party No.2 filed version, no oral evidence for any documents in support of the contention of Opposite Party No.2 is filed. The 2nd Opposite Party has no knowledge of the 3rd Opposite Party. It is admitted that the 2nd Opposite Party is the R.C owner of the vehicle K.L 12/A 8431 which was under hypothecation to 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite party was not in a position to clear the loan amount and more over he was not in a stable financial conditions to remit the installments in the due date itself, as a result the vehicle was given back to the financier and the liabilities were closed with the 1st Opposite Party. The blank <br /> papers signed and given to the 1st Opposite Party was not given back when the 2nd Opposite Party clossed the transaction with the financier. According to the 2nd Opposite Party<br /> (Contd....3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> the 1st Opposite Party would have transferred the possession of the vehicle to the 3rd Opposite Party misusing the blank paper signed and given by the 2nd Opposite Party. The vehicle would have been transferred to the Complainant by the 3rd Opposite Party. In short the 3rd Opposite Party and the complainant are not known to the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant has not approached the Opposite Party for any No Objection Certificate and this 2nd Opposite Party is an unnecessary party, in this proceedings and hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. <br /> 5. The points in consideration are.<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service in the sale of the vehicle and closing its liability.<br /> 2.Relief and costs.<br /> <br /> 6. Point No.1: The Complainant filed proof affidavit to reiterate the allegations in the complaint. Ext.A1 is the R.C Book in which the owner of the R.C is the 2nd opposite party. <br /> Ext.A2 is the agreement of sale executed on 02.09.2003 by the 3rd Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant by which the Complainant is the agreement owner. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle No. KL 12/A 8431 in make of 1999 the Bajaj RE Autorikshaw was purchased by the Complainant from the 3rd Opposite Party. The vehicle had a finance of Rs.30,000/- and Rs.22,000/- was given in cash to the 3rd Opposite Party as per the term and conditions of the sale agreement. The Complainant cleared the liability with the 1st Opposite Party give him the installments amount as per the chart given. The 1st Opposite Party even after receiving the entire due amount was not ready to give the no objection certificate to the Complainant. The 1st and 3rd Opposite Parties are declared exparte. The 2nd Opposite party is the R.C owner of the <br /> vehicle who filed version. According to the 2nd Opposite Party the vehicle No.KL 12A 8431 Bajaj Autorikshaw which was in her possession financed by the 1st Opposite Party. The registration certificate of the vehicle is in the name of the 2nd Opposite Party. The vehicle was<br /> (Contd.....4)<br /> 4 -<br /> later given back to the 1st Opposite Party the financier to clear the liability of hypothecation the blank and signed papers given by the 2nd Opposite Party at the time of availing loan to the vehicle was not given back to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party would have transferred the possession of the vehicle to the 3rd Opposite Party misusing the papers signed by the 2nd Opposite Party. The 3rd Opposite Party has no connection with a transaction effected in between the financier and 3rd Opposite Party. The sale of the vehicle to the Complainant according to the 2nd Opposite Party would have been effected by the agreement executed in between the 3rd Opposite Party and the Complainant. The Complainant produced counter foils of the receipts by which the DD was collected and sent to the financier. The sale agreement shows that the liability on the part of the Complainant is to make payment of the amount of 22 installments to the 1st Opposite Party. Ext.A3 is the counter foil of the receipts 20 in number. 20 demand drafts are taken in favour of the 1st Opposite party and total amount of Rs. 41,280/- is already remitted towards the hired amount. The liability of the Complainant in respect of the vehicle finance is closed from the face of records produced. The Complainant is the agreement owner of the vehicle the Opposite Party also admitted that the Complainant is untenable and he is not ready to transfer the vehicle registration certificate. The demand drafts were taken in favour of the 1st Opposite Party and the receipts of the courier service are marked as Ext.A4. The 3rd Opposite Party though he is the RC owner as per the Ext.A1 even after the clearance of the liability procedures were not taken by the 1st Opposite Party the financier to issue the No Objection Certificate in order to facilitate the change of name in registration certificate. From the above inferences it is held that the vehicle KL 12/A 8431 which is purchased by the 3rd <br /> opposite party from the 2nd one has sold to the Complainant without giving No Objection <br /> Certificate. The point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party's act is the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> (Contd......5)<br /> <br /> - 5 - <br /> 6. Point No.2: The Complainant cleared the liability of the loan amount issued insecurity of the vehicle. The 1st Opposite Party was sent all together DD of Rs.41,280/- the 3rd Opposite Party who sold the vehicle in virtue of the sale agreement, Ext.A2 is declared exparte. The 2nd Opposite Party also in filing version made the contention that even though the liability with the 1st Opposite Party was closed by the 2nd Opposite Party transference of the registration certificate was not made by the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party has to give the No Objection Certificate to the Complaint since the liability is no more existing with regard to the financing of the vehicle. In case of any failure on the part of the 1st Opposite Party in giving No Objection Certificate to the Complainant. The RTO, Wayanad is directed to cancel the H.P endorsement receiving the necessary fees if any. The 2nd Opposite Party is directed to transfer the RC in favour of the Complainant. <br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to issue No Objection Certificate with respect to the vehicle No.KL 12/A 8431 Bajaj Autorikshaw to the Complainant and the 2nd Opposite Party is directed to transfer the registration certificate in the name of the Complainant. In case of any failure on the part of the 1st Opposite Party to issue No Objection Certificate, RTO, Wayanad is directed to cancel the H.P endorsement. The 2nd Opposite party is also directed to transfer the registration certificate in the name of the Complainant. This order is to be complied within one month from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 15th day March 2008.