By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the duplicate Registration Certificate, cost and compensation due to the unfair trade practice.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant was using the vehicle bearing No. KL 7 BH 3354 Maruthi Swift LDI model 2008 after purchasing it for Rs.4 lakh from the opposite party No.3 who was the possessor and opposite party No.1 was the Registered owner of the vehicle with no encumbrance after executing an agreement dated 28.08.2009. The 3^rd opposite party brought the vehicle to Wayanad for sale and shown the vehicle to the complainant and assured and mediated the sale and the complainant like the vehicle and bought it after giving Rs.4 lakh to the 1^st opposite party after executing an agreement dated 28.08.2009. At that time the opposite party No.1 and 3 not handed over the Registration Certificate, Insurance Certificate, Tax token and sale letter and assured that it will handover shortly and the same facts were written in the agreement also. Thereafter when the complainant asked for the documents the 1^st opposite party stated that he has bought the vehicle from 2^nd opposite party after executing an agreement for Rs.4,80,000/- and all the documents were received and on 26.05.2009 at 8.30 am all the documents of the vehicle and his laptop were stolen from Trissur KSRTC Bus stand and he filed a petition before the Trissur Police Station and Cr.375/2009 were registered for the said incident and one copy of FIR were given to complainant and further stated that he had already filed application before the Opposite party No.4 for duplicate RC and opposite party No.4 has already enquired the matter and when it is received from the opposite party No.4 it will handover to the complainant. But it was not handed over till today and when the complainant enquired about the matter it is understood that the opposite party No.4 is planning to give the duplicate RC to the opposite party No.2. Since the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 1^st opposite party after giving the sale consideration and the opposite party No.1 also purchased after giving sale consideration to the 2^nd opposite party the planing of giving the duplicate RC to the 2^nd opposite party is unlawful activities and since the complainant could not receive the RC he cannot use the vehicle also.

3. The act of the opposite parties after availing sale consideration not providing the RC to the complainant after joint hand with all opposite parties is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and so that the complainant caused much difficulty and all the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. Hence the complainant prayed before the Forum to direct the opposite parties to handover the duplicate RC of the vehicle bearing No. KL 7 BH 3354 to the complainant and also direct to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

4. Notices were served to opposite parties and opposite party No.1 and 2 filed version and opposite party No.3 and 4 declared ex-parte on 10.12.2009. Opposite party No.1 has stated in his version that No cause of action took place from Wayanad, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Act and the complainant is not maintainable before the Forum and further stated that this opposite party and one Sreenath and one Arunlal from Wayanad were conducted one firm named Royal Forex Funds as promoters. In that scheme the complainant has worked under the 1^st opposite party and one Vishnu, AB Gas agency, Vijjesh Vasantha Nivas were also worked likewise. After alleging that the complainant and others were not received the invested money from the Firm due to the mistake of this opposite party, the complainant with 10 others attacked the house of this opposite party on 28.08.2009 and robbed the Maruthi Swift car bearing No. KL 7 BH 3354, Laptop, Mobile phone and forcefully stamped the blank stamp paper and blank papers and some documents and further states that he has not came to Wayanad and no such car sale is effected. After the incident the opposite party No.2 immediately reported the matter to the police and the opposite party has not taken any steps, then he moved a petition before the Court and on the direction of the court the Quilon Kilikkollur Police registered a crime under section 143, 146, 147, 341, 395, 427, 452, 456 & 506(2) of IPC against this complainant and others and enquiry is going on and further stated that no sale or no agreement is executed between complainant and all other allegations also denied by the opposite party No.1. And as per the knowledge of this opposite party the complainant and others took bail in the above crime and facing the investigation in Cr. No.603/2009 and the complainant is not at all a consumer and he is not entitled to get any relief from the Forum and the complaint is filed without any bonafide. Hence prayed before the to dismiss the complaint with compensatory cost to this opposite party.

5. Opposite party No.2 filed version stating that this respondent denies each and every averment in the petition except those that are specifically admitted. The petition is filed without any bonafides and it is not maintainable either on law or on facts. The petitioner is not a consumer as envisaged under the Consumer Disputes Act. As per the agreement entered into between this respondent and the first respondent the Vehicle KL 7 BH 3354 Maruti Swift Car owned by this respondent was sold in favour of the first respondent for a consideration of Rs.4,80,000/- and necessary papers for the transfer of the vehicle was handed over to the first respondent along with the registration book and insurance policy. Subsequently the first respondent informed this respondent that the papers including the RC Book where irrecoverable lost from his possession and requested this respondent to apply for duplicate copies. The first respondent had also produced the first information report on the basis of the complaint lodged by him. Believing the words of the first respondent necessary applications where made before the concerned registry office for getting duplicate copies accordingly duplicate registration book was issued to these respondent after complying all the requisite formalities. The Receipt of duplicate registration book by this respondent was informed to the first respondent but all the efforts to contact the first respondent failed. The first respondent contacted this respondent on 24.11.2009 and accordingly duplicate copy of RC Book was handed over to him. The Receipt executed by 1^st Respondent is produced herewith. In so far as this respondent was not having any dealings with the petitioner this respondent is not duty bound to handover the registration book to the petitioner without the consent and concurrent of the first respondent. This respondent is an unnecessary party in this proceeding and this respondent is not liable for the damages if any caused to the petitioner. Since this respondent is unnecessary dragged to this proceedings the petitioner may be directed to pay the cost of this respondent. There is no unfair trade practice on the part of this respondent as alleged in this petition. Hence it is most humbly prayed that this Honorable Forum may be pleased to accept this objections of the opposite party and dismiss the petition against this respondent with cost.

6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 documents were marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of RC of vehicle bearing No. KL 7 BH 3354. wherein the name of Registered owner is Johnson John Maliakkal. Ext.A2 is the copy of disputed agreement executed between complainant and opposite party No.1. Wherein the contents are same as complaint. Ext.A3 is the FIR dated 26.05.2009 Ext.A4 is the same as Ext.A3. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B4 documents were marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of Bill of laptop. Ext.B2 is the copy of the Order in MC No.287/2010 by the Honorable Highcourt of Kerala. Ext.B3 is the FIR dated 14.11.2009. Ext.B4 is the personal information of RFF Sudheer statistics wherein the complainant's name is also seen. The Report received from the State Forensic Science Laboratory department shows that the questioned document in this case was carefully and thoroughly examined and compared with standard documents in all aspects of handwriting identification and detection of forgery with scientific aids in the State Laboratory at Thiruvananthapuram. The result of examination is the following. The person who wrote the blue enclosed standard items stamped and marked A1 to A4 & S1 to S30 also wrote the red enclosed questioned item similarly stamped and marked Q1 to Q3. Opposite party No.2 has not adduced any oral evidence.

7. On considering the complaint, versions, affidavits, documents and depositions the Forum considered the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties?.

2. Relief and Cost.

8. Point No.1:- On considering all the adduced evidences and report from the laboratory the Ext.A2 agreement can be believed, the statement and defence of opposite party No.1 cannot be believed. Since in his complaint dated 26.05.2009 to the Trissur police station FIR No.375/09 it is alleged that his laptop, the original RC book of the vehicle KL 7 BH 3354, sale letter, Election ID card were stolen by somebody and at the same time the opposite party No.1 filed a complaint before the court and as per the court endorsement the Quilon Kilikollur police station charged a case under section 143, 146, 147, 341, 395, 427, 452, 456 & 506(2) of IPC as crime No.603/2009. Wherein also the opposite party No.1 alleges that his laptop mobile phone, all the records relating to his Maruthi Swift car bearing No. KL 7 BH 3354 is robbed by the complainant and his men. So the opposite party No.1 itself falsifies the version narrated by him in both the cases and some discrepancies are clear. Hence the versions of opposite party No.1 cannot be believed at all. Under the circumstances the Forum is of the opinion that there is a clear evidence of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

9. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.3 they are jointly and severally liable to provide the original RC or duplicate RC to the complainant and also liable to pay cost and compensation and the complainant is entitled for the same. Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.1 and 3 are directed to serve the Duplicate RC book and connected records of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KL 7 BH 3354 to the complainant to effect the transfer of ownership in his name and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum for Rs.13,000/- and also entitled for Rs.4,00,000/- as the value of the vehicle. In such circumstances the opposite party No.1 and 3 are entitled to get back the vehicle from the complainant.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 3^rd day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:05.10.2009.

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Pradheesh. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Sudheer Thankappan. Sales Promoter, Techno Torus, Kollam.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Registration Certificate.

A2. Copy of Agreement.

A3. Copy of FIR. Dt:26.05.2009.

A4. Copy of FIR. Dt:26.05.2009.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Copy of Bill.

B2. Copy of the Order.

B3. Copy of FIR. Dt:13.11.2009.

B4. Personal Information of RFF Sudheer.

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-