Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. This complaint is filed by complainant, who is a practicing advocate since last 25 years against the O.P. under section 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, on the ground of deficiency in service, claiming compensation of Rs.7,348/- that is at the rate of 22% p.a. on the loan amount of Rs.16,700/-for a period of 2 years. The complainant has also sought directions to the O.P. to return the following documents:-<br /> <br /> (a) Original registration certificate of the Kinetic Honda Scooter bearing registration No.KA-09-H-6894.<br /> (b) Letter addressed to the A.R.T.O. for cancellation of the entry of H.P. Agreement and<br /> (c) Required form no.35.<br /> <br /> 2. Notice was duly served on the O.P., who appeared, filed version, affidavit and contested the matter. During pendency of this case, the learned counsel for the O.P. has produced a letter dated 23-3-06 addressed to the R.T.O., Mysore requesting him to cancel the H.P. entry made in the R.C.book. He has also produced certified copy of “B-extract” that is a copy of registration certificate and duly signed form no.35 in duplicate. The learned counsel for the complainant filed written argument. Heard the learned counsel for the O.P.<br /> <br /> 3. We do not indent to reproduce various contentions of both parties, regarding the differences between them prior to their settlement. It is admitted by both parties that complainant had taken loan of Rs.16,700/- on 24-3-92 for purchase of a Kinetic Honda by executing H.P. Agreement in favour of the O.P. O.P. is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act. From the year 1992 till 8th January 2004, there were differences between parties about various payments made by the complainant and adjusted the various loan accounts. It is contended by the complainant that Secretary of the O.P. has mis-utilized the funds and the pass book was not returned to him. Any how, these facts are denied by the O.P. There is no dispute that ultimately, the matter was amicably settled between both parties on 21-12-03. The O.P. agreed to receive total amount of Rs.8,000/- in full satisfaction of the loan, under H.P. 37/4 and received a cheque dated 11-01-04. The complainant has produced receipt No.7336 dated 21-12-03. There is also no dispute that subsequently complainant approached the O.P., paid cash amount of Rs.8,000/- on 8-1-04 and received back the post dated cheque.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the simple case of complainant that after discharge of the entire loan, he was lawfully entitled to receive the original R.C.book along with a letter of cancellation of H.P. Agreement and the required form no.35. But, O.p. has failed to deliver the same on the ground that the same was not available on 8-1-04. Thereafter, complainant approached the O.P. number of times, but they have not complied with the requirement. Such act of the O.P. amounts to deficiency in service and prayed for allowing this complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the contention of O.P. that all allegations made in the complaint are baseless and false. It is admitted that on 8-1-04, the O.P. has received an amount of Rs.8,000/- on full and final settlement of H.P. loan account no.37/04. It is further contended that complainant was required to sign in the register maintained by the O.P. for having received the R.C. book and other relevant documents. Hence, a letter was addressed to the complainant on 27-9-04 and the same was sent under certificate of posting. The O.P. has also approached the complainant through it’s staff on various dates, but the complainant was not available. The complainant has kept quite nearly for a period of 2 years and filed this complaint only with oblique motive to harass the O.P. The complainant is not a Consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. It is also contended that complaint is barred by time. For the above reasons, the O.P. has prayed for dismissing the complaint with cost.<br /> <br /> 6. At this stage, we may like to mention that the facts, which are not necessary for adjudication of the matter, are not mentioned in the above paras. Complainant has filed as many as 7 original documents apart from his affidavit. O.P. produced the affidavit of Sri.N.P.Anjana, office copy of the letter dated 27-9-04 and office copy of the certificate of posting.<br /> <br /> 7. The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued and submitted that O.P. was always ready and willing to discharge it’s part. The complainant never approached the O.P. to receive the required documents. He has kept quite nearly for a period of 2 years and filed this false complaint. It is also submitted that O.P. has produced all required documents before this Forum, and prayed for dismissing the complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P.?<br /> 2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction?<br /> 3. Whether this complaint is in time?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Point no.1 to 3 : Affirmative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 10. Points no. 1:- Now, it is well-settled that after discharge the entire loan under H.P. Agreement, it is the duty of the Bank to return the original R.C. book and also issue letter addressed to the R.T.O. to delete the entry of H.P. Agreement made in the R.C. book. It is also legal obligation on the part of the Bank advancing the loan to issue the requisite forms and enable the competent authority to remove such entry, so that the full ownership of the complainant is restored. In the case of Doson Chemical Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. United Bank of India and another reported in 1986-2004 Consumer page 7455 (NS) (Part-v). The Hon’ble National Commissioner has dealt with a similar case. In the above reported case documents of title of the complainant were kept as security with the respondent Bank. Such documents were not returned even after receiving whole amount. In view of such fact, the Hon’ble National Commission held that there was deficiency in service and awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest and cost of Rs.10,000/-. In the instant case, there are no justifying grounds made out by the O.P. Bank.<br /> <br /> 11. We do not indent to discuss at length, the facts which are proved in this case, because it is an admitted fact that complainant had taken loan of Rs.16,700/- on 24-3-92, and the same was settled between the parties on 21-12-03. Any how, as per this settlement, cash amount was paid on 8-1-04 and the loan was closed. In simple words, the complainant who is owner of the vehicle was lawfully entitled to receive back the original registration book along with necessary letter and form no.35. We have to see whether the O.P. has complied with the same, and if not, whether there were any justifying reasons?<br /> <br /> <br /> 12. Complainant has produced the letter given by the O.P. dated 8-1-04 and it is clearly mentioned at the end of said letter as under:-<br /> <br /> <br /> “ÊÝÖÜ®Ü ÓÝÆPæR ÓÜíŸí«Ü±Üor ÄiÓæàóÐÜ®… ÓÜqìµPæàp… ÊݱÜӅ PæãqrÃÜáÊÜâ©ÆÉ.”<br /> <br /> <br /> 13. The above endorsement of the Secretary clearly indicates that as on the date of settlement, the original registration certificate was not returned to the complainant. It is contended by the O.P. that complainant was requested to visit the Bank and after affixing his signature, he was expected to receive such document. We have to see whether there is any substance in such contention. Even after filing this complaint, the O.P. has not produced the original registration certificate, which was retained by the Bank. O.P. has produced certified copy of “B-extract”, which was obtained from the office of R.T.O., Mysore on 27-8-03. This document was obtained just prior to discharge of the loan and it has nothing to do with the original registration book, which was received by the O.P. and retained as per H.P. Agreement. This clearly indicates that the O.P. has either lost or misplaced the original registration certificate and failed to return the same, though it was clearly mentioned in the letter dated 8-1-04. Non-return of the registration book clearly amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 14. The 2nd contention of the O.P. is that the letter addressed to the R.T.O. Mysore was ready, but complainant has failed to receive the same. It is also contended that form no.35 was not delivered as the signature of registered owner was necessary and complainant was requested to sign the same. Both such contentions are baseless. O.P. has produced a letter dated 23-3-06 addressed to the R.T.O. for handing over the same to the complainant. A similar letter would have been addressed to the R.T.O. immediately on 8-1-04 and it would have been sent to the concerned authority along with form no.35. A copy of such letter would have been sent to the complainant to show that there was proper compliance on the part of O.P. But, O.P. has kept quite, merely writing a letter to the complainant nearly after a period of 8 months from the date of discharge, requesting him to collect such material. Even in this letter dated 27-9-04, we find there is reference to original R.C. book which is not produced by the O.P. even now. Such act of the O.P. seriously affects the ownership right of the complainant for a period of 2 years. Hence, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.<br /> <br /> 15. Point no.2:- It is contended by the O.P. that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In this respect, we refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, Thurumurugan Co-operative Agricultural Credit Society Vs. M.Lalitha reported in 2004 (1) CPJ page 1(SC). We may also like to refer to the definition of “service” under section 2(1)(o) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Such service includes financing as in the instant case, the O.P. has financed the complainant under H.P. Agreement for purchase of vehicle. Hence, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. So, point no.2 is answered in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point no.3:- It is contended by the O.P. that complaint is barred by time. It is stated by the complainant in para III of the complaint that the cause of action accrued to him on 8-1-04. This complaint should have been filed within a period of 2 years that is on or before 8-1-06. It is further contended that on 8-1-06 it was public holiday being Sunday, hence complaint was filed on 9-1-06. In view of the above facts we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the complaint is in time. So, point no.3 is answered in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 17. Before concluding, we have to take into account various other aspects. Complainant has sought compensation at the rate of 22% for a period of 2 years on the loan amount of Rs.16,700/- which comes to Rs.7,348/-. Such approach of the complainant is not acceptable because the O.P. has not used any amount of Rs.16,700/- belonging to the complainant for a period of 2 years. Any how, the complainant was deprived of the exclusive ownership of the property for a period of 2 years. We also take into account that the O.P. Bank has not acted in just and proper manner with the complainant, who is a practicing Advocate. Keeping in view of these aspects, we fix the amount of damages at Rs.5,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-. Hence, we proceed to pass following order:-<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. O.P. is directed to pay damages of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of this order along with cost of Rs.500/-, failing which this amount shall carry future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from such date till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The complainant is directed to receive the original no objection letter dated 23-3-06, the copy of “B-extract” and the required form no.35 produced by the O.P. and get the hypothecation agreement entry deleted at his own cost.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br />