By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the 1^st Opposite Party to get all the financial dues from the 4^th Opposite Party and from the vehicle, to direct the 2^nd Opposite party to collect the tax arrears if any from the 4^th Opposite Party and to waive the tax on the vehicle for the period in which the vehicle is seized and kept under the custody of the Mattannur Police, to direct the 3^rd Opposite Party to return the demand notice issued by the District Collector stating the true fact that the Complainant No.1 has no means, to keep the demand notice in abeyance till the dispute is finally settled by the 4^th Opposite party, to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation by 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties and to pay the cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The 1^st Complainant is the RC owner of vehicle KL 5K 2092 and 2^nd Complainant is the guarantor to the loan. The Complainant availed a loan from 1^st Opposite Party on the security of vehicle. While so, the vehicle was sold to the 4^th Opposite party by the Complainant as per agreement dated 28.08.2014. As per agreement, 4^th Opposite Party agreed to pay the loan of Rs.2,70,000/- with interest and dues. The 4^th Opposite party had paid only 2^nd and 3^rd instalments to the 1^st Opposite party and the 1^st Opposite Party has given receipts to the 4^th Opposite Party. The sale is intimated to the 1^st Opposite Party also. The 4^th Opposite party had used the vehicle for the transportation of illicit sand and it was seized by the Mattanuur Police and is now kept in the station. The 2^nd Opposite Party issued memo to the Complainant to pay the tax on the vehicle from 01.01.2016 to 31.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.10,500/-. On 24.02.2016, the 3^rd Opposite Party initiated RR proceedings against the Complainant. The Opposite parties are negligent in dealing the matter and there is deficiency of service from their part. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to the Opposite parties and the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. 4^th Opposite Party not appeared and not filed version and hence set exparte. In the version of 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite party admitted the loan taken by the Complainants. The loan amount is Rs.2,51,903/- and the repayable amount is Rs.3,68,908/-. There are 36 instalments and 1^st instalment amount is Rs.10,980/- and other instalment amounts are Rs.10,226/- per month. The allegations in the complaint that the vehicle was handed over to the 4^th Opposite party is denied by the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite party is not aware of the seizure of the vehicle etc. The Complainant is a chronic defaulter in repayment of loan and the 1^st Opposite party had initiated arbitration proceedings against the Complainants which is pending. As on 19.04.2016, an amount of Rs.4,26,710/- is pending due in the loan amount from the Complainant. 1^st Opposite party is not liable for any reliefs sought by the Complainant. In the version of 2^nd Opposite party, 2^nd Opposite party stated that the vehicle KL 5K 2092 is registered in the name of Complainant with effect from 17.08.2013. The tax in respect of the vehicle is due from 01.07.2014 to 30.09.2014. Hence demand notice issued on 26.09.2014 and got A/D on 07.10.2014. But not cleared the tax. Therefore, RR step was initiated to realize the amount on 06.12.2014. The tax during the period 01.10.2014 to 31.12.2015 is also not paid. Again notice issued on 26.12.2015 and got A/D on 04.01.2016. Hence RR steps initiated for Rs.13,200/- on 23.10.2016. On 28.03.2016 a notice received from Complainant stating that vehicle is sold to one Jaison. But the RC owner had not filed any application for transfer of ownership under form 29 in rule 55(1) of Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the action taken by the authority is legal. The RC owner not responded to the notice issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party. No seizure of the vehicle is reported to 2^nd Opposite Party by the RC owner. In the version of 3^rd Opposite Party, the 3^rd Opposite Party had stated that he had acted upon the demand notice issued by the Tahsildar as per D2/1917/MVT/2016 dated 19.02.2016 against one Nazeer M.C for a sum of Rs.13,200/- with 12% interest and 5% CC charge. The said notice was served to the Complainant on 29.02.2016 but not paid the tax even though the Complainant promised to pay the amount on 10.03.2016. 3^rd Opposite party had acted upon as per law and as per the direction of Tahsildar. There is no deficiency of service from the part of 3^rd Opposite Party. The 4^th Opposite party is set exparte.

4. On verifying the complaint, version of 1^st to 3^rd Opposite parties and documents, the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A6. 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties reported that there is no oral evidence as the part of 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. 3^rd Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and 3^rd Opposite party is examined as OPW1. Ext.A1 is the demand notice issued by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Complainant to recover the dues dated 18.02.2015. Ext. A2 series are the reply notice send by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite party dated 02.03.2015. Ext.A3 is the demand notice issued by the Deputy Tahsildar, Revenue Recovery to the Complainant recovery the tax due over the vehicle dated 19.02.2016. Ext.A4 is the copy of Agreement entered in to between the Complainant and 4^th Opposite Party. Ext.A5 is the notice send by the Complainant to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank. Ext.A6 is the notice issued by the Sub Inspector of Mattannur to the RC owner of the vehicle. Ext.A7 is the copy of lawyer notice issued by the Complainant to the 4^th Opposite party and 2^nd Opposite Party dated 24.03.2016. On perusing the documents, it is seen that the 1^st Opposite party send notice to the Complainant demanding the dues on 18.02.2015 as per Ext.A1 notice. The Complainant send

reply notice to the 1^st Opposite Party on 02.03.2015 as per Ext.A2 documents. In Ext.A2 notice the Complaint stated that the vehicle is sold to 4^th Opposite Party. Ext.A4 agreement is executed on 28.08.2014. The 2^nd Opposite party issued demand notices to the Complainant on 26.09.2014 and 26.12.2015. It is seen that the Complainant informed the 1^st Opposite party and 2^nd Opposite Party regarding the sale of hypothecated vehicle to the 4^th Opposite Party only after receiving demand notice from the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. The Complainant did not produce any document to prove that the sale is immediately informed in black and white to the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. More over, the Complainant did not take any steps to transfer the RC in the name of 4^th Opposite Party immediately after sale. The Complainant had not produced or adduced any evidence to prove the same. The Complainant did not produce any evidence to show that 2^nd and 3^rd instalments of loan are paid by the 4^th Opposite party to the 1^st Opposite party and it is received by the 1^st Opposite party. The complainant produced Ext.A4 documents to show that the vehicle is sold to 4^th Opposite Party. Ext.A4 document is a copy of agreement which is marked subject to proof. No original of Ext.A4 document is produced in the Forum. The RR steps taken by the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are only legal actions taken by them as per law and the forum found no deficiency of service from their part. The Forum is of the opinion that the sale of hypothecated vehicle by the RC owner to a 3^rd party without the prior written permission of the financier itself is a violation of agreement and is against law. The 1^st Opposite party specifically denied the allegation of prior information of sale of the vehicle to 3^rd party by the RC owner. The Complainant failed to prove the same. The RC owner is bound to pay the tax to the 2^nd Opposite Party unless and until the RC is transferred in the name of another person. The 1^st Opposite Party being the financier of the vehicle is entitled to get the finance amount from the Complainant till the vehicle is in his name. On an overall evaluation of the case, the Forum found that the Complainant failed to prove any deficiency of service from the part of 1^st Opposite party, 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite parties. The Complainant can proceed against 4^th Opposite Party as per law. Since Ext.A4 document is not proved as per law, the Forum cannot pass any relief against the 4^th Opposite party even if 4^th Opposite party is exparte. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 19^th day of December 2016.

Date of Filing:01.04.2016.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Naseer Complainant No.1

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Stanley P.P. Village Officer, Vellamunda.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Letter. dt:18.02.2015.

A2(1). Copy Letter. dt:02.03.2015.

A2(2) Acknowledgment

A2(3) Postal Receipt. dt:02.03.2015.

A3(1) Notice. dt:19.02.2016.

A3(2) Notice dt:19.02.2016.

A4. Copy of Agreement. dt:28.08.2014.

A5. Letter. dt:02.03.2015.

A6. Notice.

A7(1) Letter. dt:24.03.2016.

A7(2) Postal Receipt. dt:24.03.2016.

A7(3). Acknowledgment.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.