Kerala

Kozhikode

369/2006

RANJITH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PROPRITOR,UPKAR FINANCE - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2008

ORDER


KOZHIKODE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CIVIL STATION
consumer case(CC) No. 369/2006

RANJITH
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

PROPRITOR,UPKAR FINANCE
REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. G YADUNADHAN2. JAYASREE KALLAT3. K.V.SREENIVASAN

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




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.

ORDER

By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The complainant, P.P. Ranjith is the owner of Autoriksha KL-11-J-4407. For purchasing this vehicle complainant had availed a loan of Rs.45000/- from the first opposite party. Complainant had to pay 30 monthly instalments. According to the complainant he had remitted the whole amount and settled the accounts with opposite party-1 based on the instruction given by opposite party-1 over phone. Complainant closed the account on 14-6-04 before the last instalment date which is 15-6-04. After clearing the loan amount the first opposite party did not give clearance and No objection certificate. Because of the negligence on the part of the opposite party complainant could not use the vehicle, which was the main source of income for him and his family. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting hire purchase clearance and no objection certificate and compensation from the first opposite party. The complainant has impleaded Regional Transport Officer, Kozhikode as Opposite party-2, that is if the opposite party-1 failed to issue clearance certificate he can get the relief through opposite party-2. Even though the notice was issued to both the opposite parties, notice to opposite patty-1 returned with the endorsement “Not claimed”. Opposite party-2 also never appeared before the Forum. Hence both the opposite parties were set exparte. The complainant filed affidavit and Exts.A1 to A5. Complainant was also examined as PW1. In which he has stated that he had remitted the whole amount due to the first opposite party and produced all the receipts as Ext.A4. From the evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 the case of the complainant is proved. In the result the petition is allowed. As opposite party-1 has not responded to the notice, opposite party-1 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to the complainant. We hereby direct the opposite party-2 to take steps for renewing the permit of petitioner’s vehicle bearing No. KL-11-J-4407 and ply it as it is the main source of livelihood of the complainant and his family. Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of October 2008. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant A1. Photocopy of Lawyer notice dt. 12-6-06. A2. Photocopy of reply notice dt. 4-7-06. A3. Photocopy of chart. A4. Photocopy pf receipts. A5. Photocopy of Certificate of registeration. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. P.P. Ranjith (Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party. None. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.




......................G YADUNADHAN
......................JAYASREE KALLAT
......................K.V.SREENIVASAN