CC Filed on 05.08.2010
Disposed on 10.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 10th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 146/2010
Between:
Sri. Venkataravanappa, S/o. Nagappa, Aged about 50 years, R/o. VeerapuraVillage, Kasaba Hobli, Kolar Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. C.N. Basavarajappa) V/S 1. Sri. Sathish, Chief Manager (Loans) ICICI Bank Ltd., 2nd Floor, West Wing, EMCT Department, Mytree, 4/10, Hosur Road, Bommanahalli, Bangalore. 2. Sri. Sandeep, Manager (Loans) ICICI Bank Ltd., Santhegate, (Near Executive Office Taluk Panchayth) | ….Complainant |
Kolar-Bangarpet Road, Bangarpet – 63114. (By Advocate Sri. B. Kumar & others) 3. Sri. Thaygaraja, S/o. Sriramappa, Dealer, Kamadhenu Tractor Show Room, Kolar-Bangalore By-pass, Kolar. | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties No.1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- with costs and interest for not returning the original documents relating to the tractor bearing registration No. KA-07-3557 and trailer No. KA-07-3558.
2. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased tractor and other accessories from OP.3 who is authorized dealer in tractor, in the name of his brother N. Narayanappa with the help of finance provided by ICICI Bank Limited (OP No.1 and 2) and that the tractor and other accessories were hypothecated to ICICI Bank Limited and that at the time of loan transaction the said Bank had retained the original R.C. book and duplicate key of tractor. Further that after discharge of the loan on 27.07.2006 itself the complainant made all efforts to get back the original R.C. and the duplicate key but the officials of ICICI Bank Limited did not respond to his request and he spent lot of time and money and made several trips to that Bank. Therefore he prayed for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The OP No.1 and 2 appeared and contended that they had not retained the original R.C. book or any other document relating to tractor and they had not retained the duplicate key. Therefore they contended that there is no question of return of the original R.C. book and the duplicate key. They admitted that they had financed the complainant for purchase of tractor etc., and as security the tractor and accessories were hypothecated in their favour. They contended that on 09.07.2009 they have issued “No Objection Certificate” for removal of entry regarding hypothecation made in the R.C. book and that they also addressed a letter to R.T.O to this effect and they issued Form No. 35 notice of termination of agreement of hire purchase. Therefore they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP.3 who is a formal party remained absent though served with notice.
4. The parties filed affidavit and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. The Learned Counsel for OP No.1 and 2 also produced certified copy of extract of ‘B’ Register relating to this tractor and stated that the same may be handed over to complainant and it serves the purpose of R.C. book.
5. The contention of the OPs that they had not at all retained the original R.C. book and duplicate key appears to be not true. It is the usual practice of all financers to retain the original R.C. book and a duplicate key while financing on motor vehicles. The complainant must be well aware of the fact that he handed over the original R.C. book and the duplicate key to financer and there is no reason for him to make a false allegation in this regard. Therefore we believe that the financer had received the original R.C. and duplicate key of the tractor from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan. This conclusion is further fortified from the contents of Form No. 35. The financer is required to issue the notice of termination of hire purchase/hypothecation to the Registration Authority enclosing the Certificate of Registration of the vehicle by paying the required fee. The R.T.O is required to make necessary entry in the concerned register and also in the R.C. and is required to return a copy of the proceedings along with R.C. to the financer. It appears thereafter the financer has to return the original R.C. book to the owner of the vehicle. From the copy of document produced by OP No.1 and 2 it appears that they had not taken all these steps and they simply took their signature with seal on Form 35 and handed over it to complainant. The original R.C. book is an important document for the owner of the motor vehicle. Obtaining a duplicate R.C. book is practically a tedious work. In the present case, the complainant has alleged that he cleared the loan on 27.07.2006 itself and thereafter continuously he is requesting for return of the original document and “No Objection Certificate” but the financer has not complied with it and only after issue of legal notice dated 28.05.2010 “No Objection Certificate” was sent but original R.C. and key was not returned and no reply was given to the legal notice. The financer has not denied the allegation that the loan was cleared on 27.07.2006 itself. Then it is the duty of financer to issue the “No Objection Certificate” and to take necessary steps for removal of encumbrance entry made in the R.C. book. Usually once the loan is cleared the financer is not worried for taking these steps. On the other hand many times they go on searching for flimsy reasons for non-compliance. It appears in the present case also the OPs made an effort to say that the loan was granted to N. Narayanappa and complainant has no concern with them, though they were well aware that N. Narayanappa was the elder brother of complainant and that N. Narayanappa had died and the entire loan was repaid by the complainant himself. Considering the facts of the present case, one cannot deny unreasonable harassment by financer in issuing “No Objection Certificate” to remove the encumbrance entry in the records of R.T.O. Therefore we think atleast a sum of Rs.10,000/- in all may be awarded as compensation to complainant. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is partly allowed. OP No.1 and 2 shall pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) to complainant, within one month from the date of this order.
Office is directed to handover to complainant the Extract of ‘B’ Register issued by R.T.O. available in this file.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 10th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
