On 5.11.99 2nd opposite party approached the complainant and said that he is a broker of 1st opposite party and he will arrange finance for the complainant's vehicle No. KL-12-3018 and entered into an agreement with 1st opposite party. As per the agreement the loan amount was repayable in 30 installments payable in monthly basis from 5.12.1999 to 5.5.2002. out of which 20 installments was of Rs.6,000/- per month and after 10 installments was of Rs.5,800/- per month. So the total amount to be repaid is Rs.1,78,000/- A chart showing the installments and amount payable was also issued by the 1st opposite party. As per the stipulations the complainant paid the whole amount by 30.4.2002. thereafter the complainant approached 1st and 2nd opposite parties for getting the clearance certificate. But they have not issued the same. On 18.11.2004 the 1st opposite party has sent a letter demanding the complainant to approach 2nd opposite party on 25.11.2004 and accordingly the complainant approached 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party demanded Rs.54,960/- towards penal interest. Hence there is serious deficiency of service on the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite party is not issuing clearance certificate to the above mentioned vehicle. Therefore it is prayed that to give direction to opposite party to do all things necessary to cancel the endorsement on RC of this petitioner's vehicle to issue clearance certificate to the above vehicle and on the event of his failing which to direct the RTO Wayanad to cancel the endorsement on the vehicles granting cost of this complainant. 1st and 3rd opposite party appeared and filed their version of 1st opposite party admitted that there was an agreement of Hire Purchase between the complainant and 1st opposite party. But it was not at the instance <br /> Contd...2)<br /> 2.<br /> of 2nd opposite party. The complainant came to Chennai. He also admitted that Amount was advanced to the complainant and it was agreed by him that regular monthly repayment will be there. Huge amount is due as additional hire charges since the since the complainant defaulted monthly repayment The payment made by the complainant were firstly adjusted towards the additional hire charges, and the amount covered by the hire purchase agreement is still due from the complainant. The matter in dispute requires to decide question of law and adjudication of condition of agreement and right and liabilities of agreement etc. The same will come with in the purview of a competent civil court and not with in the jurisdiction of this Honourable Forum. The complainant is time barred. Hence dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 3 . 2nd opposite party filed version. He denied the averment in para 4,5,6 of the complainant. He contented that it is a fabricated story and 2nd opposite party not at all connected with the transactions of the complainant and 1st opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from 2nd opposite party. This complaint is not at all connected with the transactions. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant may be dismissed with the cost of the 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4 The point are to be considered is: <br /> <br /> 1). Whether this forum has jurisdiction to try the case?<br /> 2). Whether there is any deficiency in in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 3). Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for?<br /> 4). Relief and cost.<br /> Contd.....3)<br /> 3.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the complainants case, the complainant was examined as PW1 in chief. There after he died his legal heirs impleaded as petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 vide A.No.224/07. Later, 3rd petitoner Vijayalakshmi, wife of the complainant, was filed affidavit of proof and Ext. A1 to A7 were marked. Ext.A1 is the scheduled chart issued by 1st opposite party. Ext. A2 are the receipts of payment (23 in number) made by the complainant to 1st opposite party. Ext. A3 is the letter dated, 18.11.04 sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant Ext. A4 are the photo copies of Demand Drafts for Rs.11,000/- and Rs. 34,800/- respectively. Ext. A5 series is the copy of the lawyer notice dated 30.11.04 sent by the counsel of the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext. A6 is the copy of the RC of Jeep KL-12-3018. Ext. A7 is the family membership certificate of the complainant. She was cross examined by the Counsel of 1st opposite party, and Ext. B1 was marked Ext. B1 is the copy of the Hire purchase agreement made between the complainant and 1st opposite party. On the side of the 1st opposite party Ext. B1 is marked through 3rd complainant. The counsel appearing for the 1st opposite party agreed that (1) the complainant is not maintainable since the Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case. (2) the complainant is time barred. (3) Ext. B1 document is marked. As per Ext. B1 agreement 1st opposite party certified the jurisdiction to court at Chennai only.<br /> <br /> 6.On going though the complainant, Affidavit and Ext. A3 it is clear that part of transaction took place with in the jurisdiction of this forum. Moreover Ext. A3 sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant, and shows that 1st opposite party was an agent office at<br /> S. Bathery within in the limits of this Forum. Another contention put forward by the 1st opposite party is that the complainant is time bared. Ext. A3 is a letter issued by the1st opposite <br /> Contd.....4)<br /> 4.<br /> party to the complainant. The letter sent on 18.11.04 in which the 1st opposite party directed the complainant to appear 2nd opposite party' office at S. Bathery on 25.11.04 by which the complainant appeared before 2nd opposite party on the date specified in the letter. But opposite parties demanded Rs.54,960/- towards penal interest. Thereafter on 1.12.2004 the complainants council sent a lawyer notice to1st opposite party. Copy of the same is marked as Ext. A5. The complainant is filed on 16.12.2004. Hence the Forum opposite party found that the complainant is not barred by limitation. Another contention put forward by 1st opposite party is that as per Ext. B1 agreement 1st opposite party confined the jurisdiction to court at Chennai only. On perusing Ext. B1 it is not clear how much amount accepted by the complainant. Any how in the agreement it is noted that the complainant has to pay 1,78,000/- by 30 installments before 5.5.2002. It is a printed agreement. It is written in English. It is not clear whether the contents of the agreement is read over to the complainant and the understood the contents and agreed to abide the contentions. Since the complainant is no more the forum come to the conclusion that he signed the agreement without knowing the contents written in the agreement. So that the contention is not accepted by this Forum. On perusing Ext. A1, A2 and A4 it is revealed that the complainant has remitted Rs.78,200/- before 5.5.02. No documents is produced on the side of the 1st opposite party to show how much amount is paid by the complainant. They have not produced respective account books to show how much is the penal to be recovered from the complainant. So the Forum relied the decision of National Commission reported in C.P.J. 2008- Page 40 in Ashok Lyland Finance Limited others Vs. Ramjilal Guptha in this case. As per the points dismissed above the Forum has come to the conclusion to try the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite party. Point No.3 is decided in favor of opposite parties and point No. 4 is decided in favor of the complainant.<br /> Contd.......5)<br /> 5<br /> In the result the complainant is partly allowed and the 1st opposite party is directed to do all things necessary to cancel the endorsement on RC of vehicle No.KL-12-3018 and to issue clearance certificate to the above vehicle. If the 1st opposite party is not issued N.O.C. With in one month from the date of this order the RTO Wayanad is directed to cancel the HP endorsement on the Jeep KL-12-3018. 1 And 2nd opposite party are directed to pay Rs.1000/- to the complainant as cost of this complaint.<br /> <br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on this the day of 16th June,2008.<br />