By Sri. Jose V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act to get the value of the vehicle and cost and compensation due to the deficiency of service by the Opposite parties.

2. Brief of complaint:- The Complainant purchased the Goods auto bearing No. KL 12B 7835 form the Opposite parties for Rs.25,000/- on 22.11.2013 but on that day no documents were handed over to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties. Thereafter the Complainant requested the Opposite parties to give the documents somany time within 6 months but the Opposite Party has not done so.

3. While so 1^st Opposite party demanded Rs.5,000/- from the Complainant for insurance premium for giving NOC. So on 12.03.2014 the Complainant paid Rs.5,000/- to the 1^st Opposite party it is recorded in the 1^st Opposite Party's account also, but even thereafter the Opposite Party has not handed over the documents. So the vehicle is kept idle and being deteriorated and caused much damages to the Complainant.

4. The Complainant already paid Rs.25,000/- and Rs.5,000/- to the Opposite Parties as value of the vehicle and insurance premium and for other work and proceedings including expenses around Rs.40,000/- was spend by the Complainant totally, but the Complainant could not use the vehicle even now. This is caused due to the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by the Opposite parties and they are liable for all the consequences thereafter.

5. Hence the Complainant prayed before the forum to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.30,000/- which is spend by the Complainant as value of the vehicle and insurance premium and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the difficulties, hardships and mental agony caused to the Complainant.

6. Notice were served to Opposite parties and 1^st Opposite party appeared before the forum and filed version. 2^nd Opposite Party notice was served on 31.01.2015 but he did not appear before the Forum till 18.03.2015 hence his name called absent and set exparte and proceeded with the case.

7. 1^st Opposite Party stated in his version that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case. The complainant has no right to file the above complaint and the same is to be dismissed with cost. This 1^st opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant had paid insurance amount to the 1^st opposite party. The said amount had been paid by the opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 was a member of the society and he had availed a loan from the society. For the purpose of the loan, the society was the RC Owner and as the loan was repaid, the society had informed the opposite party No.2 to transfer the ownership of the vehicle. Then he wanted the vehicle to be transferred to the complainant's name. They had given application also. The said application was discussed in director board of the society and same was allowed and passed. Then the opposite party No.1 informed them that ID card of the complainant to be produced and the vehicle to be produced for fitness test. Only after the fitness test, it can be transferred. The complainant and the opposite party No.2 never cared to do these things. Then the opposite party enquired about the vehicle and then it was revealed that the vehicle was seized by the police as they had transported sand and kept at the Elathoor Police Station,Kozhikkode. Thereafter the opposite party No.1 many times contacted the opposite party No.2 to produce the vehicle but he did not do that. This opposite party submits that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. There is no deficiency of service from opposite party No.1. There is no connection between complainant and the opposite party to approach this Honorable Forum. Complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party No.1 nor he had availed any service from them. There is no unfair trade practice from the opposite party No.1 also. The complainant has not incurred any loss as alleged. If something happened, that is for his own fault. This opposite party is not liable for the mental agony felt by the complainant if any or any damage. This opposite party is always ready to hand over all the records to the opposite party No.2 or the person he desires. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

8. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and CR(1) is also marked. Ext.A1 is the agreement executed between the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite party. Ext.A2 is the letter given by the 1^st Opposite Party to the Elathoor Police station to hand over the vehicle to the Complainant. Ext.A3 is the copy of FIR connected with the disputed vehicle in Cr No.29/15 of Koyilandy Police Station under section 420/34/IPC. Ext.A4 is the RC of the disputed vehicle. Ext.A5 is the Commissioner report (Expert Commission) issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ext.A6 is the release order of the vehicle to the Complainant by the Judicial First Class magistrate Court Koyilandy.

9. On perusal of complaint, version and documents and evidence we raised the following points for consideration.

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

2. Relief and cost.

10. Point No.1:- There is an agreement executed between the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite party regarding the sale of the vehicle and the receipt of Rs.15,000/- is also agreed by the 2^nd Opposite party and it is not disputed by any Opposite Parties. So transaction is proved by Ext.A1 document. Ext.A2 documents shows that the RC of the disputed vehicle is in the name of 1^st Opposite party and 1^st opposite party given a consent letter to the Station House Officer Elathoor Police Station to hand over the vehicle bearing No.KL 12B 7835 to the Complainant. Which shows that the Complainant is entitled for the vehicle. Ext.A4 shows that the RC owner of the vehicle is 2^nd Opposite Party and it was produced by the 2^nd Opposite party before the Forum. Hence we found that the RC was in the custody of 2^nd Opposite party since Ext.A1 agreement and it also proves that till the production of RC before the Forum by the 2^nd Opposite party it was in the custody of 2^nd Opposite party. So it is proved that the Complainant could not ply the vehicle since he has not received the RC and connected documents. Ext.A5 is the Commission report which shows that the vehicle is not in a working condition and the repairs of the vehicle is uneconomical as 65% of the vehicle is rusted. Ext.A6 shows that on a CMP 11719/14 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Koilandy under section 457 of CrPC it was ordered to release the disputed vehicle to the Complainant.

11. On over all evaluation of the document and evidence we found that after executing an agreement and receiving the value of the vehicle, not handing over the documents to the Complainant by the 2^nd Opposite party is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of 2^nd Opposite party. Hence the point No.1 is found accordingly.

12. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found against the 2^nd Opposite Party he is liable to return back the value of the vehicle and cost and compensation to the complainant and the Complainant is entitled for the same. The point No.2 is found accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and 2^nd Opposite party is directed to return back the value of the vehicle and insurance premium ie Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only to the Complainant along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant. Since all the value, cost and compensation is to be paid by the 2^nd Opposite party to the Complainant, the 2^nd Opposite Party is entitled for the vehicle which is kept in the custody of Elathoor Police Station and 2^nd Opposite party is also at liberty to take back the RC of the vehicle from the Forum which is produced before the Forum, when complying the order and to take all the steps to transfer the vehicle from 1^st Opposite Party to 2^nd Opposite party. 1^st Opposite party is directed to transfer the vehicle bearing KL 12B 7835 from the name of 1^st Opposite party to the 2^nd Opposite party if the 2^nd Opposite Party desire so. All the parties are directed to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 15% per annum thereafter.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8^th day of June 2016.

Date of Filing:13.01.2015.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Ajayakumar. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Agreement. dt:22.11.2013.

A2. Copy of Letter. dt:12.03.2014.

A3. Copy of FIR dt:09.01.2015.

A4. Certificate of Registration.

A5. Letter. dt:24.01.2016.

A6. Copy of Order. dt:01.12.2014.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties.

Nil.