By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

Complaint in short is as follows: -

1.         The complainant purchased Dost water tanke with the financial assistance of second opposite party for his lively hood and the vehicle was numbered as KL 19 E 5575. The first opposite party provided assistance to contact the second opposite party and also to register the vehicle with the third opposite party.

2.         The second opposite party directed the complainant to make the repayment of the loan amount in the office of the first opposite party. The first and second opposite parties collected registration certificate of the vehicle, one key, two blank stamp papers with signature, 7 blank cheque leaves, one revenue stamp receipt from the complainant. The loan amount given by the second opposite party was Rs.1,20,000/- and the balance amount was arranged by the complainant himself.  The complainant also paid Rs.40,000/- in the office of the first opposite party. The second opposite party visited the first opposite party office once in a month and he collected the instalment amount from the first opposite party. Meanwhile the complainant was in financial constraints and so decided to sell his vehicle. But at that time the first and second opposite parties demanded Rs.1,80,000/- to close the loan amount. After negotiation the first and second opposite parties agreed to settle the whole account for Rs.1,60,000/-.

3.         The complainant arranged the said amount from one Mr. Abdurahiman and paid the amount to the first opposite party on 18/05/2020. The first opposite party issued receipt for the same and thereafter contacted the second opposite party over phone demanding issuance of vehicle documents and the second opposite party agreed to send hire purchase termination letter to the first opposite party within 15 days. But due to Covid restrictions there was a delay in providing hire purchase termination letter and finally the hire purchase termination letter with form 35 was given to the complainant. The complainant presented the document dated 15/07/2020 before the third opposite party for cancelation of hire purchase endorsement in the registration certificate of KL 19 E 5575 vehicle. The complainant requested the first and second opposite parties are to give back the cheque leaves, RC, key and stamp paper submitted as security for the said loan. The first and second opposite parties stated that the said documents are lost. Then the complainant approached the police and filed a complaint and as a result the second opposite party returned two cheque leaves, original RC and key. The complainant approached third opposite party with all records and requested to accept the tax and allow the complainant to submit his vehicle for fitness test.  But the third opposite party said that the second opposite party had sent an objection against cancellation of hire purchase endorsement.  On enquiry it was found that there is a dispute between the first and second opposite party with regard to some other transactions and so the second opposite party wanted to harass the first opposite party and that is the reason for objection from the side of second opposite party in cancellation of hire purchase endorsement.

4.         The complainant also stated that the second opposite party have no authority to conduct hire purchase business and no license is issued to him for the same and so the second opposite party have no any authority to get endorsement in the registration certificate of the vehicle KL-19-E-5575. The complainant contacted the third opposite party to cancel the endorsement, but they refused to do the same since they have no authority to do the same.

5.         The submission of the complainant is that the complainant paid entire loan amount and the second opposite party issued hire purchase termination letter dated 15/07/2020 but the third opposite party is not allowing the complainant to remit tax and produce the vehicle for fitness test. The complainant submit that he arranged Rs.1,60,000/- with much hardship and due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant caused much financial loss and also mental agony.  Hence the prayer of the complaint is to direct the third opposite party to cancel the hire purchase endorsement entered in the registration certificate of vehicle bearing No. KL 19 E 5575 and also direct first and second opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the loss and hardship suffered by the complainant along with cost of the proceedings.

6.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The first and second opposite parties filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. According to first and second opposite parties the complaint is not maintainable and the commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is also contended that the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The submission of opposite parties is that the entire cause of action aroused at Chennai and so this commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. It is submitted that as per clause 26 of HP agreement it has stated that in the case of litigation the party shall submit the jurisdiction of the court in the city of Chennai. It is also submitted that the complainant purchased the vehicle exclusively for the business of the complaint and he is not at all depending on the income from the vehicle and the complainant is a known-vehicle dealer in the locality.

7.         The opposite parties denied the averment in the complaint that  the complainant had availed loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the opposite parties by submitting original registration certificate of the vehicle along with one key, two blank stamp papers with signature, 7 blank cheque leaves one revenue stamped receipt from the complainant with his property details submitted the opposite parties while availing the loan under hire purchase on the vehicle, balance amount to purchase the vehicle was arranged by the complainant and paid the same to the first opposite party, thereafter the  first opposite party arranged everything, the vehicle was given to the complainant with a copy of all records, thereafter complainant paid Rs.40,000/- in the office of the first opposite party, the second opposite party used to visit in the office of the first opposite party once in every month, stated that he will collect only minimum interest etc.

8.         The opposite party submitted that on 21/06/2018 the complainant approached the first opposite party and office staff of the second opposite party   was present at the office of the first opposite party and both of them has got thereon separate chamber in the office and staff. The complainant approached first opposite party and the staff of the second opposite party arranged the loan from the second opposite party.  The complainant availed loan of Rs.2,00,000/- on terms of hire purchase from the second opposite party for his vehicle by submitting the records of the vehicle. The complainant executed HP agreement of hire purchase as hirer and his friend one Mr. Abdurahiman as the guarantor to their hire purchase transaction.  The second opposite party paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as principal amount and for that the complainant issued receipt to the second opposite party. As per the agreement the complainant has to pay Rs.2,98,000/- to the second opposite party in 30 monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.10,4000x20 months, Rs.9,000x10 months from 21/07/2018 to 21/12/2020. The opposite party denied that the complainant received an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- but the correct amount is 2,00,000/-. The opposite party submitted that they are not received any security documents as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party submitted that they have no such practice of receiving security documents in hire purchase business. The complainant  paid first instalment of Rs.10,400/- through cheque No.453719 dated 20/07/2018 drawn on the federal bank limited, the second instalment of Rs.10,400/- through cheque number 453893 dated 03/09/2018, third installment for Rs.10,400/- through cheque dated 05/10/2018, there after Rs.10,000/- towards fourth instalment on 19/10/2018 and thereafter paid an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to the second opposite party on 18/05/2020 and for that the staff of the second opposite party  issued receipt bearing No.25816 through the authorized agent / first opposite party to the complainant. The opposite party submitted that the complainant had not remitted the instalments of hire purchase amount in time, as per the calculation statement the last paid amount of Rs.1,60,000/- divided in installments as scheduled in the HP agreement. On 15/07/2020 complainant approached staff of the second opposite party and expressed his willingness for closing his hire purchase account and demanded an immediate closure of the account for selling the vehicle. The complainant was a chronic defaulter and he paid the amount not in instalments as scheduled in the hire purchase agreement and so he is liable to pay the default interest for the late payment. The same was convinced the staff of the second opposite party to the complainant. After several discussion the second opposite party has given considerable reduction towards the interest and expenses to the complainant and finally settled for an amount of Rs.1,36,800/-. For that amount the complainant executed and issued a cheque bearing No:056380 dated 15/07/2020 drawn on axis bank in favor of the second opposite party at the office of the first and second party at Morayur.  The complainant being a known business man in the locality the first and second opposite party staff recommended to issue letter for termination of hire purchase believing the cheque shall be honored at the time of presentation before the bank. The second opposite party accordingly issued HP termination letter to the complainant dated 15/07/2020. The opposite party denied the averment that they demanded 1,80,000/- to close the loan. It is also submitted that they never negotiated with the complainant for settlement and agreed for Rs.1,60,000/-. It is true that the second opposite party issued receipt to the complainant for the payment of Rs.1,60,000/-. Thereafter the complainant has paid nothing towards the HP account and for closure of the HP account he finally issued a cheque for Rs.1,36,800/- in favor of the second opposite party.  But when the cheque was presented for collection the same has been dishonored. The act of the complainant was a planned cheating. The second opposite party issued the termination letter to the complainant believing the assurance of the complainant. Due to the act of the complainant the second opposite party has no other option except to object the termination already given to the complainant. The second opposite party had not given permission to submit the termination letter before the third opposite party.  The opposite party also submitted that there was no complaint was filed before the police by the complainant and no incident of returning of two cheque leaves original RC. and key as contended by the complainant. All the documents are under the custody of the complainant himself and on no occasion the opposite parties were holding the same.  The first and second opposite parties were in good terms and there is no existing fight between them. The opposite parties are doing business in a very fair manner by abiding all norms of the restrictive trade practice. Hence the submission is that the complaint filed with concocted story by reducing the principal amount from  Rs.2,00,000/- to 1,20,000/-.

9.         The submission of opposite party is that the complainant is bound by terms and conditions of the agreement and it is well settled that parties are bound by the conditions inserted in the contract.  The complainant is approaching this commission not with clean hands, without payment of balance amount of hire purchase with interest, suppressing true fact and trying to bag favorable order from the commission. The complainant has not suffered any loss or hardship but the opposite party has suffered a lot. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite parties and also seeking direction to pay the cheque amount of Rs.1,36,800/- and thereby the second opposite party is prepared to recall his objection on cancelling the hire purchase agreement.

10.       The third opposite party filed version denying the allegation of the complainant and contending they are working in accordance with motor vehicles act 1988 and the Hon’ble High court alone as got power to interfere in the affairs of the third opposite party. The third opposite party submitted that there is a dispute between the parties regarding the loan transaction and the second opposite party has raised objection in providing service to the complainant before the third opposite party.

11.       The third opposite party submitted that the parties are liable to present  application with  required fee and form 35  to get cancel the hypothecation endorsement.  The complainant herein it is submitted that not yet approached the third opposite party with the application along with required fee as well as form 35. Since there was an objection against termination of hypothecating in respect of vehicle KL-19-E-5575, the opposite party is not able to cancel the hypothecation endorsement. The opposite party is able to cancel the hypothecation endorsement through the software vahan only on lifting the objection.  

12.       The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A 6.  The opposite party documents marked as Ext. B1 to B 10. Ext. A1 is photo copy of RC. Ext. A2 is copy of license granted under section 4(3) (a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976.  Ext. A3 is copy of certificate of witness. Ext. A4 is copy of cash receipt for Rs.1,60,000/- dated 18/05/2020.  Ext. A5 is copy of HP termination letter dated 15/07/2020.  Ext. A6 is copy of form 35 dated 15/07/2020. Ext. B1 is copy of payment schedule. Ext. B2 is  hire purchase agreement photo copy. Ext. B3 is copy of letter submitted before RTO, Malappuram by second opposite party dated 18/12/2020. Ext. B4 is copy of cheque along with return memo report dated 15/07/2020, 18/07/2020. Ext. B5 is copy of letter by second opposite party to RTO, Malappuram dated 17/12/2020. Ext B6 is original cheque leaf dated 15/07/2020 and memo dated 18/07/2020.  Ext. B7 is letter by second opposite party to RTO, Malappuram dated 18/07/2020. Ext. B8 is letter from RTO, Malappuram to second opposite party dated 03/12/2020. Ext. B9 letter from RTO, Malappuram to second opposite party dated 21/01/2022. Ex.t A10 Hire purchase agreement dated 21/06/2018.

Heard complainant and opposite parties, perused affidavit and documents.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3. Relief and cost?

13.       Point No.1

            The submission of the first and second opposite party is that the entire transaction took place at Chennai and there is a clause in hire purchase agreement that in the case of litigations the parties shall submit to the jurisdiction of the court in the city of Chennai.  It is also contended the complainant purchase the Dost water tanker for the business of the complainant and the complainant is not at all depending on the income from the vehicle. The third opposite party submitted that they are being quasi-judicial body acting under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, the only authority can interfere in the affairs of the third opposite party only the Hon’ble High court. The complaint herein filed by the complainant with respect to a financial transaction which is covered by the consumer Protection Act. The present complaint is filed on 21/08/2020 which is after the commencement of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and as per the provision of the consumer protection act 2019 the complainant can file a complaint where the complainant resides or personally works for, which is provided  under section 34 (2)(d). It can be seen that the complainant has pleaded that he purchased the vehicle for his livelihood. So, we find that there is no merit in the contention of the opposite parties regarding the jurisdiction and we find the first point in favor of the complainant.

14.       Point No.2

            The case of the complainant is that he availed loan of Rs.1,20,000/- from the second opposite party and the balance amount for the vehicle was given to the first opposite party. In addition to that the complainant paid Rs.40,000/- also to the first opposite party.  The first opposite party arranged everything and the vehicle was given to the complainant with copy of all records. The second opposite party used to visit the first opposite party office once in every month and used to collect the payment from the first opposite party. The complainant paid the loan amount as directed by the first and second opposite parties but due to financial constrains he decided to dispose his vehicle and for that purpose he contacted first and second opposite parities. But they demanded 1,80,000/- rupee to close the loan.  As per negotiation the first and second opposite parties agreed to settle the entire loan amount of for Rs.1,60,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.1,60,000/- to the first opposite party on 18/05/2020 and the first opposite party issued receipt for the same and later few days the second opposite party sent the hire purchase termination letter to the first opposite party    along with form 35 and it was given to the complainant by the first opposite party. The document was dated 15/07/2020 and the complainant presented the same to the third opposite party for cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the registration certificate. The complainant also requested to give back the cheque leaves, RC, key and stamp paper, submitted as security for his loan.

15.       The third opposite party official stated to the complainant that the second opposite party had sent an objection against cancellation of hire purchase endorsement from the registration certificates.

16.       The first and second opposite parties submitted that   the loan availed by the complainant was Rs.2,00,000/- rupees as hire purchase and as per the terms of hire purchase agreement the complainant liable to pay 2,98,000/- rupees through 30 instalments as per the terms the complainant has to pay 20 instilments at the rate of 10400/- and 10 installments at the rate of  Rs.9,000/-. The complainant no instalments was paid duly and was a defaulter. The complainant paid certain instalments and on 18/05/2020 the complainant paid 1,60,000/- to the second opposite party and for that the staff of the second opposite party issued receipt bearing number 25816 through the authorized agent / first opposite party to the complainant. The said Rs.1,60,000/- divided in to installments as scheduled in the HP agreement.  Later the complainant approached the opposite party staff expressing willingness to close the loan amount.  The opposite party staff told the complainant to pay the default interest for the late payment and accordingly calculated the balance amount to be paid to close the account. Thereafter detailed discussion, the second opposite party has given considerable reduction towards the interest and expenses to the complainant and finally settled for an amount of Rs.1,36,800/-. As per the understanding the complainant executed and issued a cheque bearing No.056380 dated 15/07/2020 drawn on axis bank in favor of the second opposite party the office of the first and second opposite party at Morayur.  The complainant being a known business man in the locality the first opposite party and the staff of second opposite party issued termination of hire purchase by duly believing that the cheques shall be honored at the time of presentation before the bank. The second opposite party believing the recommendations straight away issued the termination letter of hire purchase to the complainant dated 15/07/2020. But the cheque was dishonored while it was presented. The opposite party alleges planned cheating against first and second opposite party.  Thereafter they issued letter to the third opposite party opposing the cancellation of Hire purchase endorsement from registration certificate.

17.       The perusal of the documents shows that as per hire purchase agreement, the loan amount is shown as 2,00,000/- and the installment number as 30 monthly instalments.  So the is a dispute regarding the liability between the complainant and the second opposite party. At the same time the opposite party admit that he had issued hire purchase termination letter along with form 35. It is expected to issue a termination letter only on closing the liability. In this complaint though there is dispute between the complainant and first and second opposite parties, the issuance of termination letter on hire purchase agreement is clear indication of discharge of liability. The complainant also contended in the complainant that there is a dispute between first and second opposite parties and as a part of the same. His request for termination letter culminated in filing this complaint. It can be seen that the opposite parties one and two are not restrained from proceedings against complainant for the realization of arrears as per the hire purchase agreement. It is not proper to cancel a termination letter issued to the third opposite party after duly executing. Hence it is not proper on the side of third opposite party to act on the mere objection of the first and second opposite parties to cancel the hire purchase termination letter.  If at all any dispute between the complainant and first and second opposite parties regarding the arrear amount towards the installments that is to be proceeded legally before the appropriate authority.  Hence we do not find any merit in the contention of the third opposite party for not cancelling the hire purchase endorsement from the registration certificate of the vehicle.  The third opposite party is liable to cancel the hire purchase endorsement from the registration certificate of the vehicle No.KL 19 E. 5575 on proper application from the complainant. It appears the complainant submitted no objection certificate as well as form 35 as required by the provisions of motor vehicles act. In the light above fact and circumstances we direct the third opposite party to cancel the hire purchase endorsement from the registration certificate and the first and second opposite parties are also allowed to proceed against the complainant to realize the arrear amount towards the hire purchase agreement.  Considering the nature of transaction   and the nature of dispute we do not consider any amount as compensation but we fix Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings which the first and second opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainant. Hence, we allow this complaint as follows:

1. The third opposite party is directed to cancel the HP endorsement in favor of the second opposite party from the Registration certificate of Dost LGV water 5 Tanke KL-10-E-5575 on receipt of proper application and required fee from the complainant forthwith,
2. The first and second opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. The first and second opposite parties are at free to proceed against complainant to realize the arrear amount if any towards the hire purchase agreement before the appropriate authority.

The first and second opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they are liable to pay the above said amount with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.

Dated this 28^th day of October, 2022.

Mohandasan K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A6

Ext.A1: Photo copy of RC.

Ext.A2: Copy of license granted under section 4(3) (a) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976.

Ext A3: Copy of certificate of witness.

Ext A4: Copy of cash receipt for Rs.1,60,000/- dated 18/05/2020.

Ext A5: Copy of HP termination letter dated 15/07/2020.

Ext.A6: Copy of form 35 dated 15/07/2020.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B10

Ext.B1: Copy of payment schedule.

Ext.B2: Hire purchase agreement photo copy.

Ext.B3: Copy of letter submitted before RTO, Malappuram by second opposite party dated 18/12/2020.

Ext.B4: Copy of cheque along with return memo report dated 15/07/2020, 18/07/2020.

Ext.B5: Copy of letter by second opposite party to RTO, Malappuram dated 17/12/2020.

Ext.B6: Original cheque leaf dated 15/07/2020 and memo dated 18/07/2020.

Ext.B7: Letter by second opposite party to RTO, Malappuram dated 18/07/2020.

Ext.B8: Letter from RTO, Malappuram to second opposite party dated 03/12/2020.

Ext.B9: Letter from RTO, Malappuram to second opposite party dated 21/01/2022.

Ext.B10: Hire purchase agreement dated 21/06/2018.

Mohandasan  K., President

PreethiSivaraman C., Member

     VPH                                 Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member