By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:-

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the owner of the Motor Cycle Hero Honda Passion No.KL 12 D 0533 registered at the office of the 5^th Opposite Party. The bicycle was purchased from 1^st Opposite Party. At the time of purchase of the vehicle a loan was taken from 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties through 1^st Opposite Party. 2^nd Opposite Party is the business partner of 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant has entrusted post dated cheques drawn on Andhra Bank, Kalpetta branch and the original R.C with the 4^th Opposite Party through 1^st Opposite Party. The Complainant had cleared the entire loan liability on 09.12.2008 and NOC was given for the cancellation of loan endorsement with R.C. But 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party failed to return the original R.C. To the enquiries made by the Complainant, the 1^st , 3^rd and 4^th contended that the R.C is with 2^nd Opposite Party. The refusal of 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th to return the R.C and other documents amounts to deficiency in service. The Complainant therefore prays for an order directing the 1^st, 3^rd and 4^th to return the original R.C of the motor bicycle bearing No. KL 12 D/0533 and directing the 3^rd and 4^th to return fourteen post dated cheques drawn on Andhra Bank. In case of failure of 1^st , 3^rd and 4^th to return the R.C book, 5^th Opposite Party may be directed to issue duplicate R.C for the above said vehicle. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and other costs.

2. The 1^st Opposite Party filed version and stated that they have no role in the loan transaction between the Complainant and the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties. The 2^nd Opposite Party filed version and stated they also have no connection with the loan transaction.

3. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party also filed their version admitting the finance transaction between the Complainant and them. They also admitted that they have collected 36 post dated cheques for Rs.1,395/- each. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party admit that the Complainant had cleared the entire loan liability and NOC was given to him.But they have never retained the R.C of the Complainant. They have returned all the cheques to the Complainant on the same day when the NOC was given. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties have no objection in filing an application for the duplicate R.C by the Complainant. The 5^th Opposite Party filed version that for canceling the loan endorsement in the R.C, proper application with necessary fee is necessary and in this case, no such application is made.

4. Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A3 on the side of the Complainant. The 1^st Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the Opposite Party. No oral evidence was adduced for 2^nd , 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties.

5. The matters to be decided are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- In this case 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties admit the loan transaction and loan clearance. They admit that they have given NOC for the cancellation of loan endorsement in the R.C. Book. The only dispute is that the R.C book is not returned. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties state that they were not in the possession of the R.C of the vehicle. At the same time they admit that they have collected cheques from the complainant and returned the same after the closure of the loan. However, they have not produced any document to show what are the documents accepted at the time of granting the finance and whether these documents were returned at the time of closing the loan. In short, there is no transparency or mutuality in the entire loan transaction. Hence the loanee is put at the mercy of the financier for ever. It is common knowledge that in almost all cases of vehicle finance, the R.C is kept by the financier. The loan is endorsed in the R.C and there is no need for the financier to keep the R.C with them. Here the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Party has not produced any documents to show what documents they have accepted at the time of extending the loan. Hence point No.1 is decided in favour of the complainant.

7. Point No. 2:- As the 4^th and 5^th Opposite Parties could not produce any documents to show what are the documents they have accepted and returned in relation to the loan transaction, inference is taken that they have kept the R.C book of the complainant and not returned it at the closing of loan. Therefore the Complainant is entitled to get compensation.

8. Therefore the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties are directed to give the complainant a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and the cost of the complaint Rs.1,000/-, total Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand only)  within 30 days of the receipt of this order. The 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties are directed to pay interest on the ordered amount at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till payment.
 

The 5^th Opposite Party is directed to issue duplicate R.C of the vehicle KL 12-D/0533 on proper application with sufficient fees by the Complainant. The 5^th Opposite Party is also directed to cancel the loan endorsement in the R.C of the above said vehicle even in the absence of NOC from the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Shiju James Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. V.M. Kunhabdulla. Manager, City Mobikes, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of the Cash Receipt.

A2 series (2 in numbers) Copy of Temporary Receipt.

A3. Copy of Certificate of Insurance of Motorcycle/ Scooter.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Deed. dt:11.01.2008.