KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 746/2015

JUDGMENT DATED: 25.07.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 194/2011 of CDRF, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. M/s Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., (Now Bajaj Fin Service), A Block, 1^st Floor, Tharakandam Estate, Kurisupally Road, Opp: Cochin Shipyard, Ravipuram, Kochi-682 015.

2. The Manager, Bajaj Automobiles Ltd., Chakorathkulam, Kannur Road, West Hill, PB 935, Kozhikode.

3. The Managing Director/Office in charge, Registered Head Office, Bajaj Auto Limited, Akurdi, Pune-411 035.

                                   (By Adv. P. Balakrishnan)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Rajendran P.R., S/o Ramachandran, Parapallikunnel House, Amarakunil Post, Pulpally, now residing at Parapallikunnel House, Pulpally Post, Anappara.

2. K.V.R. Motors, Thottapankulam, Sultan Bathery.

3. The Regional Transport Officer, Civil Station, Kalpetta, North Post, Wayanad.

JUDGMENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER

This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 2 to 4 in C.C. No. 194/2011 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad (District Forum for short).  The 1^st respondent is the complainant, 2^nd respondent is the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd respondent is the 5^th opposite party.  The complaint is to get the original Registration Certificate from the opposite parties. 

2.  Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:  The complainant purchased one motorcycle (Platina of Bajaj Company) from the opposite party on 07.08.2006 for Rs.43,205/- and registered as No. KL 12 C 5712 and arranged finance facility for the said amount on a condition to repay the loan amount in 24 equal instalment of Rs.1,560/- each.  At the time of agreement the 1^st opposite party collected 24 blank cheques and copy of Identity card, pan card etc. From 05.06.2006 onwards 1^st opposite party used to collect instalments from the complainant. After registration of the motorcycle the registration certificate was not given to the complainant and it was collected by the opposite parties from the Regional Transport office. Thereafter the complainant deposited the required amount in the account of Union Bank, Sulthan Bathery and opposite parties collected all the instalments from the bank through the cheque already given by him. After all the instalments were collected by opposite parties, the opposite parties are liable to give the registration certificate and remaining cheques and all the connected papers to the complainant but the opposite parties were not done so. So the complainant filed a petition before the Circle Inspector of police, Sulthan Bathery as Rt No.62/10 and the Circle officer directed the opposite parties to give back the required documents. Thereafter the opposite parties have sent a notice to the complainant on 09.12.2009 to clear the dues on a settlement scheme.  So the complainant appeared before the hearing authorities and from the adalath which was held from the MGT Building Kalpetta, the opposite parties have convinced that no amount was due from the complainant and 3^rd opposite party gave the No Objection Certificate with their signature and seal. Before getting this notice the complainant remitted Rs.753/- for insurance premium and the certificate for the same is shown to the opposite parties and convinced them. Hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to give the Registration Certificate, original key and connected documents and to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and costs of the proceedings and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to give the No Objection Certificate to cancel the Hypothecation endorsement and also direct the supplementary 4^th opposite party to give duplicate registration certificate to the complainant if the opposite parties 1 to 4 is not given the original registration certificate.

3.  In this case 1^st opposite party filed version and in their version they denied the entire allegations against them.  They are only the dealer.  They never collected any document from the complainant. 

4.  Opposite parties 2 to 4 filed version and contended that they had only arranged financial facility to the complainant and not responsible for the registration of the vehicle.  They have not received any amount from the complainant for registration charge.  The complainant never submitted the original R.C. Book to them. The opposite parties stated that they do not have the custody of the R.C. Book.  Hence they are not liable to return the same.

5.  5^th opposite party filed version stating that the complainant is the registered owner of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL 12 C 5712 with effect from 29.07.2006.  The Registration Certificate of the vehicle was issued to the complainant after completing the formalities during the year 2006 itself.  The complainant has not approached the 5^th opposite party with any complaints regarding the issue till date.  As such they have nothing to do with the issue leading to the dispute between the complainant and other opposite parties in this case.  They stated that they are ready to issue duplicate registration certificate if proper application was filed.   

6.  In this case complainant and 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit. The complainant has produced three documents which were marked as Exts. A1 to A3.  1^st opposite party produced Exts. B1 and B2. 

7.  On the basis of the evidence adduced by both the parties the District Forum found that the Registration Certificate was prepared in the name of the complainant on 07.08.2006 itself which is evident from the Registration Certificate particulars given by the 5^th opposite party.  Usually the Registration Certificate will be sent to the registered owner from the Regional Transport Office. If it is not received within the reasonable time the complainant can very well approach the RTO to get the Registration Certificate and details regarding the Registration Certificate.  But no action was seen taken by the complainant to get the Registration Certificate from any one till 01.01.2010.  The District Forum further found that the complainant cleared the loan amount on 19.08.2009.  But the opposite parties had not given No Objection Certificate to the complainant.  For that reason deficiency of service occurred from the side of opposite parties 2 to 4 and allowed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties 2 to 4 have filed this appeal. 

8.  The appellants stated that the 1^st respondent/complainant himself admitted in the complaint that on 09.12.2009 the opposite parties issued No Objection Certificate to him.  The 5^th opposite party produced evidence before the District Forum that they sent the original Registration Certificate in the address of the 1^st respondent in the year 2006 itself.  Hence the appellants argued that there has been no deficiency in service from their side. 

9.  We carefully examined the whole file and find that the finding of the District Forum is not sustainable.  The complainant had filed this complaint only on an experimental basis.  It is his responsibility to obtain R.C. Book in time from the concerned authority.  In his affidavit and complaint it is clearly stated that the opposite parties issued Clearance Certificate on 09.12.2009 itself.  The District Forum did not observe that fact.  It is the duty of the registering authority to issue R.C. Book to the owner of the vehicle.  The 5^th opposite party, the RTO proved that they had sent the original R.C. Book in the name of the complainant in the year 2006 itself.  In these circumstances we do not find any deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum, Wayanad in C.C. No. 194/2011 is set aside.  The complaint shall stand dismissed.  No order of costs. 

The appellant has the right to withdraw the amount deposited before this Commission and before the District Forum on proper application.

AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER                          

                                                                        BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER                  

jb