By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, Presient:

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of a Toyota Qualis Van No.KL12A 9892 availing loan of Rs.1,90,000/-. The loan amount was to be remitted in monthly instalments and the interest accrued was 9% flat. The Opposite Party also collected from the Complainant Rs.10,480/- for the payment of premium at the time of availing loan. At the time of availing loan the Complainant had given six blank signed cheques drawn on SMGB, Kalpetta. The Complainant was ready to foreclose the loan and the same was informed to the Opposite Party. The R.C book was not given to the Complainant and the endorsement of the finance was also in the R.C. The Opposite Party has not shown the R.C book so far to the Complainant. The demand of the Complainant for the issuance of the R.C at the time of closing the loan was not considered by the Opposite Party. The Complainant believes that the Opposite party had done something with the R.C of the vehicle. The Complainant was ready to deposit Rs.74,000/-. Apart from that the Opposite Party is trying to seize the vehicle for compelling the Complainant to satisfy with the duplicate R.C.

2. There may be an order directing Opposite Party:-

1. Not to seize the vehicle till disposal of the complaint.

2. To produce the original R.C of the vehicle receiving Rs.74,000/- from the Complainant and to issue clearance certificate.

3. To return the blank cheque leaves and other documents by the Opposite Party. The Complainant is to be given Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost.

3. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The issuance of the vehicle loan to Toyota Qualis is admitted. The repayment was to be in 24 monthly instalments with effect from 10.1.2008. The Complainant made regular payment of the equated monthly instalments for a considerable period and the remaining instalments were late. The estimation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party calculated the balance amount as Rs.74,000/- is incorrect. The original R.C as averred in the Complainant was not given to the Opposite party. According to the information the original R.C entrusted to R.T.O Wayanad was misplaced from there and they had issued a duplicate R.C to the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant that with an intension to foreclose the loan when the Complainant approached the Opposite Party the missing of the R.C was known are nothing but false. The Opposite Party has not mis used the original R.C for any other purpose and no other overt act persists in the transaction. The Complainant is liable to pay Rs.12,816/- towards overdue interest. Rs. 46,710/- was to be paid by the Complainant for the future instalments and Rs.55,552/- for overdue instalments as on 08.08.2009. The as per the terms of agreement executed in hypothecation of the vehicle the Forum lacks of jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The clause 17 of the agreement reads that in dispute or differences effected which is to be settled in arbitration and the jurisdiction is confined to Chennai in mutual agreement. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

4. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed statement in short it is as follows:- The hire purchase endorsement was in R.C with effect from 18.01.2008 that of Cholamandalam DBS Finance Ltd., Chennai. The Petitioner applied for duplicate R.C on 26.03.2008 and the same was issued. The further liability of the Complainant with the Opposite Party is not known to the Regional Transport Office.

5. Points in consideration are:

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit the Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit interalia contenting the contention of the Complainant. Ext.A1 to A5, B1 to B4, C1 and C2 are the documents considered in this case. The Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party also tendered oral evidence in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the vehicle purchased by the Complainant under finance of the 1^st Opposite Party at the time for closing the loan. The 1^st Opposite Party could not give back registration certificate to the Complainant which resulted the depreciation in the sale value of the vehicle No. KL 12 A 9892. The 1^st Opposite Party contented that the registration certificate was not handed over to the financier the 1^st Opposite Party herein. The certificate of registration was misplaced from registration authority the 2^nd Opposite Party for which the 1^st Opposite Party is not responsible. The Complainant also admitted that Rs.74,000/- was to be given to the 1^st Opposite party for the closing of the liability of loan. The Complainant deposited Rs.74,000/- and it was released to the Opposite Party as ordered in I.A 277/09. Complainant himself admitted that the liability with the 1^st Opposite Party was not closed. The Complainant remitted equated monthly instalments within the due date only for a considerable period. The receipts produced by the Complainant shows that only 12 instalments were paid. The actual payment of monthly instalments was to be closed on 10.12.2009. Ext.C2 shows that for duplicated R.C amount was remitted and Ext.C1 is the application for issuance of duplicate certificate of registration. The Complainant contented that the signatures in the application form for duplicate R.C are not put by him. There is considerable difference in the visual verification of the signature of the Complainant that is in the vakalath and in the application for duplicate R.C. How ever it is admitted that the file related to the application for duplicate R.C is mis placed from the office of the 2^nd Opposite Party. According to the Complainant the 2^nd hand vehicle was purchased by him under the loan of the 1^st Opposite Party and R.C was given to the 1^st Opposite Party the financier. In effect the Complainant lost the original R.C which was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party for loan purpose. The Complainant has no case that the R.C was given for hire purchase endorsement and at that time the certificate of registration was lost from the 2^nd Opposite party. The hire purchase agreement executed between Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party exemplifies an interest of 36% for the delayed instalments. How ever the quantum of the amount for the delayed instalment is not brought out in evidence. Ext.A5 is a sale agreement executed by the Complainant with one Abdul Shameed who is examined as PW2 in this case. The sale could not be completed as per the terms of the agreement in the absence of the original R.C. It is also testimonied by this witness that in the absence of original R.C value of the vehicle will be reduced to some extent. According to the 1^st Opposite party Rs. 63,469/- was still in due from the Complainant as on 07.4.2010 that consists of the instalments due. The amount of additional interest is not brought out in evidence how ever apart from payment made by the Complainant additional amount to be paid to the 1^st Opposite Party for the closing of the loan, we are fixing it Rs.26,000/-. The Complainant is directed to give Rs. 26,000/- in addition to the payment already made by the Complainant for the closing of the liability. On receival of the amount the 1^st Opposite Party has to issue non liability certificate for the cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement. The Complainant is to be issued duplicate certificate of registration on application with required fees.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to issue non liability certificate for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement from the R.C of the Complainants vehicle No. KL. 12A 9892 on acceptance of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six thousand only) from the Complainant. In case of any failure on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party in the issuance of non liability certificate after receipts of Rs.26,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six thousand only). The 2^nd Opposite Party is directed to cancel the hire purchase endorsement. The 2^nd Opposite Party is also directed to give the Complainant duplicate registration certificate of vehicle on application of the Complainant with required fees. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 20^th October 2010.

Date of filing:05.06.2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Mammutty. Business.

PW2. Abdul Shameed. Business.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Rajeev Kumar. M Assistant Legal Coordinator, Cholamandalam

DBS Finance Ltd., Nadakkave.

OPW2. K. P. Ramanathan Joint R.T.O, Wayanad.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Repayment Schedule. dt:22.05.3009.

A2. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A3. Motor Insurance Cover Note.

A4 series. Receipt.

A5. Agreement. dt:20.03.2009.

C1. Application for the issue of duplicate Certificate of Registration.

C2. Receipt.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Certified extract of the Resolution of Board of Directors of 1^st O.P.

B2. Copy of Power of Attorney.

B3. Copy of Loan Agreement. dt:21.01.2008.

B4. Account Statement from 07.04.2000 to 07.04.2010.