D.o.F:16/7/09

D.o.O:21/06/2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                            CC.167/09

                        Dated this, the 21st     day of June 2010.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                            : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                   :MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI                         : MEMBER

M.M.Abdul Rahiman,

S/o Mohammad Kunhi,                                       : Complainant

R/at Bandicha, Thekkil,Kasaragod

(Adv. A.C.Sukumaran,Kasaragod)

1.  M/s Anupam Finlease(India) Ltd,

    Kandappa Mudali Street,

    Elephant Gate,Chennai 600079.

2. N.Kamalaksha Shenoy alias M.K.Shenoy,                 : Opposite parties

    Anupam Finlease(India )Ltd, T.B.Road, Junction,

    Puthiyakotta,Kanhangad.PO

(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair, Kasaragod)

                                                                 ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT

Bereft of unnecessaries  the case of the complainant Abdul Rahiman is as follows:

   Complainant availed a loan of 30,000/- rupees from opposite parties with respect to his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D 7291.  He repaid the entire amount with interest which aims to 45,000/- rupees.  Thereafter he asked the original R.C of the vehicle that was kept by the opposite parties as a security.  But opposite parties are not giving back the R.C.  Hence the complaint for an order against opposite parties to return the RC together with compensation and costs.

 2.  Opposite parties resist the claim.  According to them, they already returned the RC to the complainant on closing the loan after cancelling the HP agreement w.e from 10/2/2006.  Later complainant entered H.P.agreement with Sriram Transport Finance Co. w.e.f 27/2/06.   The said HP agreement is endorsed in the RC of the vehicle.  Since the opposite parties did not have any transaction with the complainant they are unnecessary parties to the proceedings.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim.  Exts.A1 to A5 series marked.  On behalf of opposite parties OP.No.2 the Manager of Anupam Finlease (India )Ltd Kanhangad filed affidavit.  Ext.B1  marked.  Both sides heard.  Documents perused.

4.  The points to be decided in this case are 

    1. Whether  opposite parties returned the RC of the complainant’s vehicle after closing the loan?

2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so as to what relief?

5.   Points 1&2 :    Complainant as PW1 during cross examination has stated that opposite parties have not returned the RC on 18/12/06 after closing the dues.  He also deposed that he is not aware  about the  hire purchase endorsement  in the RC  of the vehicle with Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.

    On the other hand DW1 deposed that on enquiry they came to know that the complainant entered  Hypothecation  agreement with Sriram Transport Finance Co. w.e.f 27/2/06 and both the entries of  cancellation of HP of Ist opposite party and entering  of HP  with Sriram Transport Finance can be seen from the RC of the vehicle.  The photostat copy of the RC is produced by 2^nd opposite party along with version.  During  cross examination DW1 deposed that he is not aware whether the RC was returned to the  complainant after closing the loan.

6.    It is the case of opposite parties that the RC is returned to the complainant after closing the loan and the complainant entered into  HP agreement with Sreeram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.  Then how  and from where did they obtain photostat copy of the RC  ie Ext.B1 pertaining to complainant’s vehicle is remained unexplained.  It is interesting to note that Ext.B1 is a photo copy without any attestation by any authority that it is a true or certified copy .  This would makes it  clear the RC is  in the custody of the opposite parties and the photostat copy  is taken by  them themselves from the original.  Further no receipt is produced by opposite parties evidencing the delivery of the RC to the complainant after closing the loan.  The lack of such a receipt is also fatal to the contention of opposite party that they returned the RC to the complainant.  Apart from that opposite parties  further contended that complainant entered HP agreement with Sriram Transport Finance Co..  To substantiate this contention opposite parties  produced only Ext.B1.  If that be so, what prevented opposite parties from producing  the copies of the  so called HP agreement  alleged to have entered  by the  complainant with opposite parties?  In the absence of such documents Ext.B1 photostat copy of the  RC cannot be considered as a conclusive proof that complainant has deposited RC with M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.  for availing a fresh loan.  Moreover , the details of the said loan is also not brought before us.   On the other hand, it throws light to the recondite finance arrangements between opposite parties and M/s Sriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd.  For that the complainant is totally an alien.  Therefore, the act of opposite parties not redeeming the R.C after the closure of loan amounts to deficiency in service.

7.. Relief and Costs:

    The R.C is an important document pertaining to the identity of a vehicle .  As per the M.V.Act and Rules one should keep the R.C while plying the vehicle.  The non keeping of R.C is attracts penalties under Motor Vehicles Act.  Therefore, no doubt the complainant might have suffered to ply the vehicle without R.C.  Opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for that.  The retention of original RC of the vehicle as a security during the loan period by the financers is despicable.  This is not at all necessary in view of the endorsement of loan transaction in the RC as per Sec.51 of the M.V.Act that gurantees the right of financiers and the protection of their interest.  Therefore in view of Sec.14(1)(f) of the C.P.Act we direct the opposite parties to return all the R.C’s of vehicles retained by them as security to it’s owners.  Any complaints in future about the demand of  financier for the RC and retention  of RC of  the loanees vehicles will be  dealt  seriously.

       The complainant herein is denied access to the  RC pertaining to his vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 14/D 7291 unnecessarily for long.  The opposite parties are definitely liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and hardships suffered by him.

   Therefore the complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to hand over the R.C of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14/D7291 to the complainant together with a compensation of 10000/- rupees and cost of 3000/- rupees.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which on application by the  complainant direction will be  given to the concerned Registering Authority to issue duplicate RC pertaining to vehicle No.Kl-14/D 7291 and opposite parties will be further liable to pay interest @12% per annum  for 10,000/- rupees  ordered as compensation  from the date of complaint till payment.

Sd/                                                                Sd/                                                       Sd/          

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1-&A2-lawyer notice

A3&A4-postal acknowledgment

A5 series instalments receipts

B1-Copy of RC

B2- Registration particulars

PW1-M.M.AbdulRahiman-complainant

DW1-Kamalaksha Shenoy- OP.2

Sd/                                                            Sd/                                                           Sd/         

MEMBER                                              MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

eva/

       /Forwarded by Order/

          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT