Delay of 66 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned.

          Complainant/petitioner purchased a two-wheeler for Rs.47,100/- by making down payment of Rs.10,850/-.  For rest of the amount, the petitioner obtained loan from Mont Blank Financial Services.  The loan was to be repaid from 11.11.2000 to 10.11.2002 in EMIs of Rs.1,884/- per month.  After payment of the instalments, petitioner approached the respondent for no-dues certificate and RC of the vehicle.  The respondent showed its inability to deliver the same on the pretext that Mont Blank Financial Services had closed its business and the RC was not in the possession of the respondent.  Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent and seeking direction to deliver the RC and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

Defence taken by the respondent was that the RC was never handed over to it.  That the Mont Blank Financial Services had closed its business and there was no deficiency on its part. 

District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondent to return the RC of the vehicle by canceling the hypothecation endorsement or by obtaining a duplicate RC.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs. 

Cross-appeals were filed before the State Commission.  By the impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismissed the complaint.

It is evident from the perusal of paras 7, 9, 10 and 11 of the impugned order that the respondent was not guilty of deficiency in service.  The RC was not handed over to the respondent.  All the same, the respondent had written to the RTO that since the entire amount had been paid by the petitioner, the respondent had no objection to the transfer of the vehicle in favour of the petitioner.  The State Commission has concluded its order by observing thus (paras 14 and 15) :

“As said above, though the complainant had borrowed loan from M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd., it is not known how the opposite parties are connected with that company.  Be it as it may.  As seen from the written version, as pointed out by the District Forum also, they also owned the responsibility, admitting the entire payment of the loan.  They have also issued No objection certificate, as well No Due Certificate, as seen from Ex.A5.  Though the loan was availed from M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd., M/s. Tata Finance, viz. the opposite party, issued No due certificate, as well signed in the blank form, for cancellation of Hire Purchase Agreement, in the RC book of the motorcycle, which would go to show that the opposite party has something to do with M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd.,  Having Ex.A5, the complainant ought to have approached the Regional Transport Authorities, for cancellation of the entry in the RC book.  Since the entrustment of the RC with the opposite party is not made out, it is not known, whether the complainant had misplaced or M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd., has misplaced, for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible, since admittedly, it had nothing to do at the inception viz. sanctioning loan, financing the same, for the purchase of the motor vehicle.

In order to make out a case, as if the opposite party had assured to return the RC, aid is sought from Ex.A4.  Ex.A4, is the letter written by the complainant to one Mr.Sriram and Manoj, as if they were working in Tata Finance, Two wheeler division, which is denied by the opposite party.  In Ex.A4, it is said, the above said two persons have requested the complainant, to meet them, in the month of December, for the delivery of No Objection Certificate, and Registration certificate.  The documents produced by the opposite party, would indicate that these two persons, were not in the service of the opposite party company, during the relevant period.  Therefore, the letter said to have been issued by the complainant, to the above said person, will not prove that there was an undertaking to deliver the RC, or No Objection Certificate, as the case may be.  Except this paper, we do not have any other paper indicating that the opposite party had assured or undertaken to return the Registration Certificate.  Admittedly, No objection certificate was given, and they have addressed the Regional Transport Authority also, informing no objection for the cancellation of the hypothecation entry.  This being the position, assuming the opposite party had stepped into the shoes of M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd., they did their service as far as they can do, and the non-return of the Registration Certificate, cannot be fastened, because it is not made out, that the RC was entrusted to the opposite party, and they have undertaken all the liability of the M/s.Mont Blank Financial Services Ltd., under any document or otherwise.  This being the position, no question of deficiency in service, comes into operation, and the consequential follow up is there cannot be any mental agony also, due to the act of the opposite party, for which no Fora can give compensation, or any direction, which was not properly considered by the District Forum.  When the grant of compensation, itself is illegal, question of enhancement compensation also does not arise for consideration, which was aimed belatedly.  For the above said reasons, appeal filed by the opposite party deserves to be accepted, whereas the appeal filed by the complainant, deserves to be rejected.”

          We entirely agree with the view taken by the State Commission that since the RC had not been handed over to the respondent, the respondent, in no way, could be held to be deficient in service in not returning the RC.  The respondent has given the no-dues certificate and written to the RTO to cancel the hire-purchase agreement.  The petitioner, after receiving the letter from the respondent (Exh. A-5), ought to have approached the RTO for cancellation of the original RC.  State Commission has rightly come to the conclusion that the respondent was not in any way deficient in rendering the service.  Dismissed.