aKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 528/2011

JUDGMENT DATED:21..12..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

K.Reghunathan,                                        : APPELLANT

Krishna Bhavan, Mosque Lane,

Kesavadasapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram.

(By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair)

                Vs.

1. M/s Kotak Mahindra Primus ltd.,.,        : RESPONDENTS

    4^th Floor, Thadikkaran Centre,

    Palarivattom, Kochi.

2. The R.T.O., R.T.Office,

     Thiruvananthapuram.

JUDGMENT

          The appellant is the complainant in OP.332/05 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The complaint has been allowed in part holding that the complainant is not liable to pay an amount to the 1^st opposite party/Financier and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party/RTO.  The complainant is not satisfied with the above order as no compensation has been awarded.

          2. The case of the complainant is that he had availed a loan of Rs.3.00.000/- from the 1^st opposite party/Financier for the purchase of a Tata  sumo car.  As per the agreement the amount to be repaid is Rs.3,71,985/- at the rate of Rs.10333/- in 35 installments.  It is the case that after making the entire payment the 1^st opposite party issued in NIL statement intimating the termination of the loan.  The first opposite party demanded Rs.7,090/- towards penal interest as                                                                                                   well as miscellaneous charges due to dishonour of cheques.  The complainant has sent a letter dated 21.6.03 requesting to exonerate him form making the above payment.  The complainant asked for a no objection certificate and form No.35 as he wanted to   sell the vehicle. Without considering the same  1^st opposite party  issued a Lawyer Notice dated 7.10.04 demanding an amount of  Rs.8508. 33 Because of the non issuing of NOC and form No.35 the complainant could not dispose off the vehicle.  The complainant applied to the RTO/2^nd opposite party seeking for issuing certificate for using the vehicle for home use as the validity of the contract carriage permit has expired.  The 2^nd opposite party insisted for the NOC from the 1^st opposite party. It is alleged that the complainant has sustained financial loss due to the action of the opposite parties.

          The opposite parties remained ex-parte.

          The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavit of the complainant and Exts.P1 to P18.

          The Forum has found that the complainant has obtained relief against the 2^nd opposite party from the Lok Ayukta and hence held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party .  So far as 1^st opposite party the Forum has observed that as per Ext.P2 letter addressed by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party the complainant has admitted late payment .  All the same the forum has held that the complainant  is not liable to pay any amounts to the 1^st opposite party.

          Before this Commission also the opposite parties remained ex-parte.

           We find that as per Ext.P2 letter dated 21.6.03 in response to the letter of the Financier demanding payment of Rs.7090/-  it is admitted that his source of income was from contract work with Government departments and that the payment from the government departments often came very late which in turn had on certain occasions caused bouncing of cheques due to shortage of funds with the bank. As per the above letter he has sought for exemption from payment of Rs.7090/- demanded by the financier.  In view of Ext.P2 letter we find that the complainant has virtually admitted that there was bouncing of cheques.  Hence there cannot be a finding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the financier/1^st opposite party.

          So far as the 2^nd opposite party/RTO in concerned Ext.P14 the order of the Lokayukta has been complied with, it appears. The Lok Ayukta has directed to the RTO to consider the application for transfer of the vehicle as private carriage without the production of NOC.  It is noted by the Lok Ayukta that NOC from financier is necessary for conversion of a vehicle from one class to another under section 51(6) of the Motor vehicle Act.  The RTO has directed the complainant to send a registered letter to the financier requesting to issue NOC and produce acknowledgment card as the complainant had not produced the acknowledgment card. But he produced a letter from  the Manager, customer care centre to show that letter dated 20.10.0.05 was delivered to the addressee.  The RTO could have acted on the basis of the above.  Hence evidently there is lapse on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.  But being a statutory authority we find that the complainant cannot treated as a consumer so far as the RTO is concerned.  In the circumstances we find that there is no merit in the appeal filed.  Hence the same is dismissed.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

                   JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU       : PRESIDENT

ps