By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complaint is filed on 4-7-08. The complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from M/s. Ace Motors, Kallai Road, Calicut with Reg. No.KLT-7154. At the time of purchase there was a Hire purchase agreement with the opposite party. The complainant had issued 36 numbers of cheques in favour of the opposite party for Rs.1508/- each in favour of UTI/FCI Bank, Calicut. At the time of executing the hire purchase agreement, a representative of the company Mr. Sujish had collected Rs.6814/- towards registration charge, three years insurance premium life time tax etc. of the said vehicle. Complainant had several times requested for payment chart and details regarding the payment. There was no reply from the opposite party. Opposite party had received 36 cheques of Rs.1508/- each. From 17-9-04 up to 10-8-07 O.P. had collected the cheque amount regularly. The complainant had paid 4 instalments through D.D. and balance of the three numbers of the instalments was collected by Recovery Executive Rajesh. Complainant had paid back the opposite party the full amount as per H.P,. Agreement. Due to deficient service of the opposite party complainant did not get no objection certificate, and H.P. cancellation in the R.C. book. Complainant has filed the petition alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party for not making available N.O.C. and R.C. after cancelling the hire purchase hypothecation. Opposite party filed a version. Opposite party has admitted that there was an H.P. agreement between O.P. and the complainant for purchasing a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from Ace Motors. O.P. also admitted that the complainant had given 36 numbers of cheques of Rs.1508/- each. All the cheques were dated contrary to the statement of the complainant that he had given undated cheques. O.P. denies that representative of O.P. had received 6814/- towards registration charge, insurance premium, life tax etc. O.P. had given the purchase amount to the dealer. Except the transaction with the dealer O.P. has not done any transaction with the complainant. It is the dealer who registers the vehicle and also takes delivery of the vehicle. O.P. has no connection with payment of insurance premium or tax. O.P. has given details regarding payment chart. The R.C. Book of the complainant is not with the opposite party. Complainant has to take the initiative to get the R.C. book from the R.T.O. Office. The O.P. has not received the full amount of the 36 cheques submitted by the complainant. Seven cheques given by the complainant had returned due to insufficiency of funds. Complainant was at default in paying the instalments. The complainant has to pay to the opposite party Rs.19821/- towards cheque return and interest. The complainant has defaulted in paying the amount. Hence O.P. has not given the N.O.C. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite party. Hence O.P. prays to dismiss the petition with costs to O.P. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief? Complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A8 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral or documentary evidence on the side of O.P. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan from the opposite party by hire purchase agreement for purchasing a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from Ace Motors. At the time of agreement complainant had given 36 undated cheques to the opposite party. Opposite party did not give any payment chart details to the complainant. Complainant is alleging negligence and deficiency on the part of opposite party for not furnishing payment details and also for not giving no objection certificate and cancellation of H.P. agreement in the R.C. book, even after repaying the full amount to the opposite party. The definite case of the opposite party is that the complainant was at default in repaying the instalment towards the hire purchase agreement. The O.P. is entitled to get cheque return charges and interest for the defaulted amount. At this instance even though complainant has produced ext,.A1 to A8 he has not produced a document which shows that he has repaid the loan amount in full and obtained a document to show that the loan is closed. The documents produced by the complainant are not concrete proof to show that he has remitted the instalments on time. Hence in our opinion the version of O.P. that the complainant has not paid the full amount to the O.P. can be accepted. As the complainant was not able to prove his case beyond doubt we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief sought in the petition. In the result petition is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court this the 15th day of June 2010. SD/- PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 26-10-04. A2. Reply notice dt. 26-12-05. A3. Photocopy of Lawyer notice 17-12-07. A4. Photocopy of Registration certificate. A5. Statement of Current Account with State Bank of Hyderabad. A6. Photocopy of cheque. A7. Letter dt. 9-5-05. A8. Visiting Card. Documents exhibited for the opposite aparty. Nil Witness examined for the complainant: PW1. Abdul Razaque.P. (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None Sd/- President // True copy // Date of filing : 04-07-2008 Date of order : 15-06-2010 (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
