DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala

Dated this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

CC No.66/2007

Dr.Captain C.S.Gopinathan,

Retired Director of Health Services (Kerala),

Vrindavan,

Palakkad Road,

Koduvayur 678501. - Complainant

(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)

Vs

1. M/s.HDFC Bank Ltd.

Elmar Square,

M.G.Road,

Ravipuram, Cochin.

2. Santhosh Thomas,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Car Loan Collection,

Palarivattom, Cochin.

(By Adv.Jeejo.C.Sunny, Paulochan Antony.P & Kailas.K.A)

3. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

8/246, Chandranagar Junction,

Palakkad.

(By Adv.Jeejo.C.Sunny, Paulochan Antony.P & Kailas.K.A)

4. The Assistant Registering Authority,

Office of the Assistant Registering Authority,

RTO Office,

Coimbatore (South) – 641018. - Opposite parties

(By R.Anand, Additional Govt. Pleader)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, President

Brief facts of the complaint:

Complainant availed a car loan from the opposite party bank for his personal use for Rs.12,50,000/- (Rupees Twelve lakh and fifty thousand only) with an interest rate of 10.36%

per annum to purchase a brand new Ford Mondeo – Petrol Saloon type luxury car as per the terms and conditions of a hire purchase agreement. Entire loan amount was paid by the complainant and hypothecation was raised and the same was endorsed in the Registration Certificate also. The grievance of the complainant is that after closing the loan and raising the hypothecation, opposite parties has not handed over the duplicate key of the car. According to the complainant, it is the usual practice followed by the finance companies that at the time of availing a hire purchase auto loan, the original key will be handed over to the complainant and duplicate key will be kept with the financier. As opposite party has not returned the same, complainant was forced to manufacture a duplicate key from its authorised dealer. Price of the duplicate key was Rs.13,469/-. Complainant sent many letters to 1^st opposite party as well as 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties who are the representatives and branch office of 1^st opposite party asking to compensate the complainant. Even then opposite parties has not returned the same. Hence the complaint. No relief is claimed against 4^th opposite party who is the Registering Authority.

2. 1^st opposite party was set ex-parte. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties filed version. Opposite parties admit the loan agreement and the fact that entire loan amount was paid off by the complainant. According to the 1^st opposite party, duplicate key was not handed over to the opposite parties at the time of agreement. Further opposite parties is not aware of the loss of Rs.13,469/- due to the manufacture of duplicate key by the complainant. Opposite parties are not liable to pay an amount as compensation to the complainant.

3. The evidence adduced by the parties consists of the affidavit of the complainant and opposite parties two and three. 3^rd opposite party was cross examined as DW1. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite parties. Ext.C1 also marked.

4. Now the issues for consideration are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

5. Issue No.1:

It is not in dispute that the complainant has availed a car loan from the 1^st opposite party. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has paid off the entire amount as per the

hire purchase agreement. NOC was issued to the complainant and hypothecation was raised.

The only grievances of the complainant is that opposite parties has not returned the duplicate key handed over to them at the time of entering into the hire purchase agreement. According to the complainant it is the duty of the opposite parties to hand over the same to the complainant as the hypothecation was raised. The contention of the opposite parties is that at no point of time duplicate key was handed over to the opposite parties.

6. We perused all the relevant materials on record and heard the parties in detail.

7. None of the documents produced by either the complainant or the opposite parties would show specifically that the complainant has handed over the duplicate key to the opposite parties. But as argued by the learned counsel for the complainant it is the usual practice followed by the finance companies to retain the duplicate key of the vehicle till dues are cleared. Further as per the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement on default of the monthly payment, the finance companies are empowered to repossess the vehicle. This is legally practicable only when they are in possession of the duplicate key.

8. The above stated facts and evidence go on to show that duplicate key is in the custody of the opposite parties. Hence non return of the same on closure of the hire purchase amounts to deficiency in service.

9. Issue No.2:

Complainant has produced Ext.A4 which is original bill for the purchase of duplicate key. The amount for the same is Rs.12,000/- plus Rs.1,469/- tax. Hence complainant is entitled for the said amount along with compensation for the deficiency in service. Complainant has not claimed any relief against 4^th opposite party.

10. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite parties one to three are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.13,469/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred and sixty nine only)being the price of the duplicate key together with an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

11. Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of October, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

DW1 – Shri.Sojin Kumar.U

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of letter dtd.31/03/07 sent by complainant to 2^nd opposite party

Ext.A2 – Loan closure letter dtd.10/05/05 sent by 3^rd opposite party to complainant

Ext.A3 – Copy of Sales Invoice No.FMC006 dtd.29/06/02

Ext.A4 – Tax Invoice No.RRIA611001BL dtd.23/03/2007 issued by Rajshree Ford

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Car Loan Agreement

Forum's exhibit

Ext.C1 – Copy of Judgement in Revision Petition No.02/09 dtd.05/02/09 pronounced by

Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram.

Costs (Allowed)

Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand and five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings