By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President :
The case of complainant in CC.674/07 is that the complainant is the owner of the motor cycle bearing No.KL8-AA3949. The respondent advanced money to complainant for purchase of the vehicle. An agreement was executed between them. The amount of advance was to be repaid in 36 equal instalments. As collateral security the respondent collected registration book, blank signed stamp paper, white paper and cheques. Owing to financial constraints last four instalments fell in arrear. There upon the respondent seized the vehicle on 20/1/07 forenoon and got an acknowledgement that the vehicle in good condition. The complainant is now in receipt of summons from MACT, Ottapalam in MVOP 504/07, to be present in the Court. In the petition the complainant is shown as 1st respondent and one Ajeshkumar shown as 2nd respondent. The accident was on 20/1/07. The complainant wrote letters to respondent seeking the balance, but there was no reply. The complainant has no connection with the accident occurred on 20/1/07 at 8pm. The respondent is obliged to return the vehicle to complainant on payment of amount. Hence the complaint.
2. Counter averments are that it is true that there was an agreement executed between the parties for advancing amount to complainant for purchasing vehicle. The complainant should pay the amount by 36 equal monthly instalments. It is incorrect that complainant was forced to sign in blank papers. The complainant committed default in repayment for six instalments. It is incorrect that the respondent had seized the vehicle on 20/1/07. The vehicle was surrendered by complainant. It was sold to a third party in the condition in which the complainant had surrendered the vehicle. The vehicle was sold in public auction. The complainant is not entitled to get back the vehicle. The vehicle had insurance and so complainant is not liable to pay the compensation amount as per the order of MACT. Hence dismiss.
3. CC.675/07 is filed to get fees of the lawyer who had appeared before the MACT, Ottapalam along with compensation.
4. The counter averments are that the vehicle was surrendered by complainant himself. When the vehicle was taking to the godown of respondent by driving the same another motor cycle driven by Sri.C.P.Vincent rashly and negligently hit on this vehicle and accident was caused. C.P.Vincent solely responsible for the accident. The agent of respondent institution Ajeshkumar driven the vehicle as per the rules. Hence this respondent is not at all liable to compensate the complainant. The complainant had used the vehicle negligently and badly and so the resale value of the vehicle was very low. So it is baseless to claim Rs.30,000/- as the value of the vehicle. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount. Hence dismiss.
5. Points for consideration are that :
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service committed by respondent?
2) If so reliefs and costs ?
6. Evidence consists of Exhibits P1 to P6 series in CC.674/07 and Exhibits P1 to P3 in CC.675/07 and Exhibits R1 to R6.
7. The complainant filed two cases against the respondent, one for return of the vehicle involved in the case and another for Advocate fee for conducting MVOP before MACT, Ottapalam. The complainant purchased a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL AA.3949 by availing financial assistance from respondent. According to complainant he has committed defaults in repayment of the amount owing to financial constraints and so the respondent seized the vehicle. While so a summons from MACT, Ottapalam was received by making him as a respondent in MVOP 504/07. The thing is that the vehicle was involved in an accident and the ownership was in his name and the injured filed MVOP by making him also as a respondent.
8. The respondent filed version by contenting that since the complainant committed defaults and realized that he is unable to repay the loan amount he had surrendered the vehicle to respondent institution. It was sold in public auction also. With regard to MVOP it is the contention of respondent that since the vehicle had insurance policy, the complainant will not be liable to pay any amount.
9. The complainant wanted to get back the motor cycle involved in the case. He is ready to pay the due amount also. But the respondent would say that the vehicle is already sold in public auction. So it is unable to return the vehicle. The complainant who was a defaulter wanted to get back the vehicle by this application. But since the vehicle is already sold to 3rd party, it is unable to award the return of vehicle. As per Exhibit R1 the vehicle was purchased in the year 2004 and complainant used it till 2007. So it is not at all reasonable to return the amount paid by complainant. According to respondent only six instalments were remitted by complainant. So there is no merit in filing of CC.674/07 and complainant is not at all entitled to get the reliefs sought.
10. CC.675/07 is filed to get Rs.75,000/- to meet the fees of the counsel appearing for the petitioner and other incidental expenses to travel to and fro Andathode to Ottapalam along with compensation.
11. As per Exhibit P5, the certified copy of award of Ottapalam MACT the complainant was remained exparte in the case. So the fee claimed for contesting the case is totally false and baseless. As per Exhibit P5 the complainant is also personally liable to compensate. The surrender of the vehicle was on 20/1/07 and the accident was also on 20/1/07. The counter of respondent in CC.675/07 would clearly clarify the accident and at the time of accident the vehicle was driven by the agent of respondent. Complainant had got ample opportunity and valid reasons to contest the case before MACT on the basis of these contentions of respondent in this case. He failed to take benefit out of these contentions. It is found that there was no deficiency in service committed by respondent in these cases.
12. In the result both the complaints stand dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of January 2014.
