Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/261

Harvinder Pal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Regional Transport Authority - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

11 Mar 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

            C.C. No. :             261 of 2019

            Date of Institution:  18.10.2019

            Date of Decision:    11.03.2020

 

Harvinder Pal Singh son of Amarjit Singh r/o VPO Sandhwan, Tehsil and District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

 

Regional Transport Authority, Faridkot through its RTO.  

                                                                                        ....Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:        Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                    Sh Gurpreet Singh on behalf of OP.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                       Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP for deficiency in service by not cancelling the hypothecation in respect of vehicle of complainant and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him besides litigation expense.

cc no. 261 of 2019

2                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of vehicle bearing registration RC No. PIK 8 and he took  loan and hypothecated his vehicle with ICICI Bank. It is submitted that in September, 2009, complainant paid off the entire loan and agreement of hire purchase/hypothecation was terminated and thereafter, he submitted application before OP for cancellation of hypothecation on Registration Certificate and also deposited fees of Rs.100/-vide receipt dated 27.10.2009, but till date Opposite Party has not cancelled the hypothecation from the RC of his vehicle. Complainant visited the office of OP many times and made several requests for cancelling the hypothecation of his vehicle, but all in vain. Despite repeated requests, OP has not done anything needful and paid no heed to his genuine requests. It amounts to deficiency in service and has caused great harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                          Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 23.10.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 

cc no. 261 of 2019

4                                     On receipt of notice, OP appeared in the Forum through their representative, but despite availing sufficient opportunities, did not file any reply. It was observed that OP was not interested in contesting the present complaint and just wanted to linger on the matter, therefore, defence of opposite party was struck off vide order dated 10.02.2020.

5                                   Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-5 and documents Ex C-1 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                   There is no rebuttal from Opposite side as OP did not file any reply and its defence stood struck off.

7                                   From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant, it is observed that case of complainant is that he purchased car bearing registration RC No. PIK 8 with the financial assistance of ICICI Bank. He paid off all the instalments of loan to the bank and nothing is due towards him. After clearing the bank loan, his loan agreement with bank was terminated and then, he applied before OP for cancellation of hypothecation from his vehicle bearing Registration Certificate RC No. PIK 8 and also deposited requisite fees against

cc no. 261 of 2019

proper receipt on 27.10.2009, but Opposite Party has not cancelled the hypothecation from the RC of his vehicle. He made several requests to OP, but they paid no heed to his genuine requests and did not remove the hypothecation from RC of his vehicle, which amounts to deficiency in service. On the contrary, there is no rebuttal from opposite side.

8                               To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has brought our attention towards document Ex C-1 which is Notice of Termination of An Agreement of the Hire/Purchase/Lease/ Hypothecation that clearly proves the fact that agreement of Hire-Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation entered between complainant and ICICI Bank in respect of his vehicle bearing Registration Certificate RC No. PIK 8 has been terminated on 19.09.2019. Ex C-2 is copy of letter issued by ICICI Bank to OP/Regional Transport Office, that further clarifies the fact that vehicle loan agreement with customer/complainant Harvinder Singh is terminated and through this letter, request was made by ICICI Bank to OP to remove the hypothecation from the Registration Certificate of vehicle of complainant. Ex C-3 is copy of receipt dated 27.10.2009 that reveals that complainant deposited requisite fees with OP for getting cancellation of hypothecation. Through his affidavit Ex C-5 complainant has reiterated his grievance and has made request for direction to OP to remove the hypothecation from the RC of his vehicle.

cc no. 261 of 2019

9                              We have thoroughly gone through the file and have carefully perused the documents produced on record by complainant party. It is observed that grievance of complainant is that despite his repeated requests, OP did not cancel the hypothecation from the registration certification of his vehicle, which caused harassment and mental agony to him. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all the documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt. Action of OP in not removing the hypothecation from the RC of vehicle of complainant is inappropriate and it amounts to deficiency in service.

10                                   From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence placed on record by complainant, it is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not cancelling the hypothecation of the vehicle of complainant. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to Regional Transport Office, Faridkot to remove the hypothecation from registration certificate of vehicle bearing RC No. PIK8 as loan agreement between complainant and ICICI Bank has been terminated since long ago. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him as well as for cost of litigation incurred by him on present complaint. Compliance of this order be made within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order,

cc no. 261 of 2019

failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 11.03.2020

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)                 (Ajit Aggarwal)  

 Member                             President