Kerala

Malappuram

CC/09/51

AbdulaAzees s/o kunnimoideen - Complainant(s)

Versus

prop. Madan finance - Opp.Party(s)

24 Jun 2010

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMCIVIL STATION
Complaint Case No. CC/09/51
1. AbdulaAzees s/o kunnimoideenMukra House.Valakulam.po,perumanna amsom Clari desommalappuramKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. prop. Madan financecorpration ,102,Gaudya Mutt street,Royapeetteh Chennai 600014Kerala2. R,T.O TIRURR.T.OFFICE TIRURMalappuramKerala3. R.T.O R,T.OFFICE MALAPPURAMMalappuramKerala4. MOHAMMED SALEEMS/O PMOHAMMADALI,PARAGODATH HOUSEPUTHANAGADI PO CHEENIKKALMalappuramKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONOURABLE MRS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI ,PRESIDENTHONOURABLE MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN ,MemberHONOURABLE MS. E. AYISHAKUTTY ,Member
PRESENT :

Dated : 24 Jun 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President,


 


 

1. Complainant who is a driver purchased a Mahindra pickup vehicle to earn his livelihood by means of self employment. The vehiclee KL10-N 1539 was purchased through an agent at Manjerifrom fourthh opposite party. The fourth opposite party had already availed a loan upon the vehicle from first opposite party. The vehicle was thus purchased by complainant from fourth opposite party on an agreement to repay the balance finance. The complainant was directed by first opposite party to repay Rs.2,38,000/- to discharge the loan. Fourth opposite party who was the original owner had paid 5 instalments. Complainant paid the entire balance towards the loan. But first opposite party failed to issue the hire purchase termination letter in favour of complainant and demanded Rs.14,000/- as additional hire charges inspection fee etc. Complainant is not liable to pay any further amount. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service praying to direct first opposite party to issue the hire purchase termination letter in favour of the complainant together with ancialliary reliefs.

     

2. First opposite party did not appear though notice was issued two times. First opposite party was set exparte on 28-7-2009. Second and third opposite parties filed version. It is submitted that fourth opposite party is the registered owner of the vehicle and that though complainant claims to have purchased the vehicle in the year 2004, no application has been submitted so far for transfer of ownership. That an application for change of permit was submitted by the registered owner but could not be proceeded further as the no objection from the financier was not submitted. That the dispute relates to loan transaction and that second and third opposite parties are unnecessary parties. Notice was issued to fourth opposite party who did not appear and was set exparte on 06-10-2009.

     

3. Complainant claims to have purchased the vehicle in 2004 from fourth opposite party. But he has not applied for transfer of the vehicle to his name. Such transfer is not possible if the financier does not issue the hire purchase termination letter. Ext.A3 series are receipts issued by first opposite party for the repayment of instalments. The receipts after 09-6-2005 shows that the instalments were paid by the complainant herein. He contends to have paid the entire loan. There is no contra evidence adduced by the financier on this issue. We therefore hold that the complainant has repaid the entire loan. The complainant is entitled to receive the hire purchase termination letter. The non issuance of hire purchase termination letter is deficiency. Complainant has filed I.A-81/09 and 82/09 seeking interim reliefs to direct second and third opposite parties to renew the permit. These prayers are beyond the scope of adjudication of Consumer Forum and hence dismissed by disposing the complaint. The complainant can approach second and third opposite parties directly for such reliefs.

     

4. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order that first opposite party shall issue hire purchase termination letter in favour of the complainant within one month from date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which on the request by the complainant a copy of this order will be communicated to the concerned Regional transport Officer who on receipt of copy of this order shall cancel the endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle KL10-N 1539 standing in favour of first opposite party.

     

    Dated this 24th day of June, 2010.


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

APPENDIX


 


 

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A5

Ext.A1 : Agreement.

Ext.A2 : Chart of payment issued by first opposite party.

Ext.A3(series) : Receipts (19 Nos.) from first opposite party to fourth opposite party.

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the DD for Rs.5,000/-

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the permit.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil


 


 

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT


 


 

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER


 


 


 


[HONOURABLE MR. MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN] Member[HONOURABLE MRS. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MS. E. AYISHAKUTTY] Member