By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:
The gist of the case is as follows.
The Petitioner purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. KL 12/B 7991 (Engine No. 04EOM 05529, Chassis No. 04E09C05488) from the Opposite Party No.1 in an exchange mela conducted by him at Sulthan Bathery on 14.5.2004. The Complainant had also taken a loan from the 2nd Opposite Party. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, Opposite Party No.1 and 2 assured the Complainant to issue an attested copy of the R.C within one week. They assured to issue the original R.C Book after paying the entire loan amount. But they have never issued the copy of the R.C Book to the Complainant inspite of several demands. The Complainant could not ply the vehicle without getting the R.C copy. Since the Complainant in a business man, he was forced to pay a huge amount for hiring autorikshaw to the business spot at Ambalavayl. Towards auto charges, so far he spent Rs.10,000/-. The vehicle was kept idle in the shed for the last 10 months and the Complainant sustained financial loss. The Complainant sent lawyer notice to the Opposite Parties and they did not reply .There is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Therefore the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to issue an attested copy of the R.C Book to the Complainant and to pray a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and other cost.
2. The Opposite Parties appeared and filed version. Opposite Party No.1 stated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. The Complainant had purchased the vehicle from Opposite Party No.1 having office at Calicut. He took delivery of the vehicle from Calicut. It is not correct to say that he had purchased the vehicle from Sulthan Bathery in an exchange/Sale Mela. The 1st Opposite Party states that only a temporary registration of the vehicle was done at Calicut and all the necessary documents were handed over to the Complainant. The vehicle was registered at Kalpetta. The 1st Opposite Party has nothing to do with the R.C book of the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party had received the entire price of vehicle and he has no occasion or need to keep the R.C book of the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party had never promised the Complainant to issue copy of R.C. Book.
3. The Opposite Party No.2 admits that the Complainant had taken a loan from them. But the registration of the vehicle was done by the Complainant himself and he had not surrendered the R.C. Book with the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant is a chronic defaulter and an amount of Rs. 22,345/- as defaulted installments and Rs. 4,645/- as additional finance charge is outstanding in the name of the Complainant. The allegations of the Complainant is with an intension to evade the liability of loan installments. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party, so the Opposite Parties pray for an order dismissing the complaint.
4. The Complainant was examined as PW1 and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A3. Opposite Party No.2 was examined as OPW1 documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B5.
5. The matters to be decided are as follows. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?
6. Point No.1:- The Contention of the complaint is that the Opposite Party have not issued copy of the R.C to him. The Complainant state that the original R.C is kept by the 2nd Opposite Party and would be released on repayment of the loan. Hence the Complainant is the R.C owner and there is no evidence to show that the R.C is handed over to the financier (OPW2). On the application of the Complainant the Forum has ordered the Regional Transport Officer, Wayanad to produce the delivery book and other documents relating to the motor cycle No.KL 12/B 7991. The Regional Transport Officer made a representation that those documents could not be found out. The file is misplaced at the time of shifting of Office. The Regional Transport Officer also represented that there is an authorized practice that the R.C is kept with Financier and there is provision in the Motor Vehicles Act for that. But in the absence of any records to that effect, the forum cannot assume that the R.C is with the 2nd Opposite Party and they have refused to issue copy to the Complainant. So, no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party is found. 7. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency in service found on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
Hence, the complaint is dismissed no cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 23rd day of January 2009.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER- I: Sd/-
MEMBER-II : Sd/-
A P P E N DI X
Witnesses for the Complainant :
PW1 Jaleel Complainant
Witnesses for the Opposite Party :
OPW1. Prabeesh Manager, Indus Ind Bank.
Exhibits for the complainant :
A1. Series Lawyers Notice, Postal receipt and acknowledgment card dt. 9.02.05 A2. Chart dt.26.05.04 A3. Receipt dt. 14.05.04 Exhibits for the Opposite Party :
B1. Account statement dt. 6.11.07 B2. Legal Notice dt. 2.07.08 B3. Lawyer Notice B4. Letter dt.18.02.05 B5( 7 sheets) Copy of Loan Agreement dt. 17.05.04
......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW | | 
