The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that he purchased a TATA Magic vehicle vide Registration No.OR-10F-5576 in an auction conducted by the Ops during the month of February, 2013 for an amount of Rs.90, 000/- and during auction the complainant paid Rs.30, 000/- to the Ops and the rest amount of Rs.60, 000/- was financed by the said Ops to be recovered in 12 EMIs @ Rs.5700/-.  The complainant has deposited Rs.44, 400/- with the Ops towards loan dues and paid Rs.12, 751/- towards insurance premium on 29.11.2013.  The complainant submitted that on 21.5.14 the RTO, Koraput inspected the vehicle and the complainant could not produce the registration certificate, road tax documents, route permit, fitness certificate as the vehicle still stands in the name of Branch Manager, Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd., Rourkela and all the documents of the vehicle are still in the possession of the Ops.  It is also submitted that the vehicle was seized by the RTO, Koraput and kept in Jeypore Sadar PS.  To the advocate notice dt.12.8.2014 of the complainant for return of documents, the Ops replied on 15.9.2014 denying all the liabilities.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and other documents in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.20, 000/- towards costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops filed counter in joint denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that immediate after auction they have handed over the vehicle to the complainant during February, 2013 along with all relevant M. V. documents and the complainant after proper verification of documents started paying EMIs from 17.7.13 after a gap of 5 months.  It is also contended that the complainant deposited Rs.44, 400/- towards EMIs out of total amount of Rs.90, 000/- as estimated and there is no excess amount taken by the Ops.  Denying the seizure of the vehicle by the RTO, Koraput, it is submitted that the vehicle of the complainant was seized by the Police due to rash and negligent driving of the complainant for which the Ops are not liable.  The Ops submitted that the complainant has not cleared the loan dues of Rs.85, 270.58 and in order to escape from the liabilities, the complainant has approached the Forum.  Thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case purchase of Tata Magic vehicle on auction vides Regn. No.OR-10F-5576 by the complainant from the Ops at Rs.90, 000/- is an admitted fact.   It is also seen that the complainant has made down payment of Rs.30, 000/- and rest amount of Rs.60, 000/- has been financed by the Ops which is to be recovered from the complainant in 12 EMIs @ Rs.5700/-.  Repayment of loan dues of Rs.44, 400/- to the OPs is also an admitted fact.  The case of the complainant is that after auction purchase, the Ops did not take any step for transfer of ownership of the vehicle as per their promise and requests of the complainant as a result of which the RTO, Koraput seized the vehicle on 21.5.2014.  The Ops on the other hand in their counter stated that immediate after auction they have handed over all the relevant M. V. documents to the complainant and hence they have not committed any deficiency in service.  Further the Ops stated that the vehicle of the complainant has not been seized by the RTO, Koraput but due to rash and negligent driving, the Police have seized the vehicle of the complainant.

5.                     From the above rival contentions of the parties, the following issues emerge importance for consideration in order to come to a right conclusion. (1.) Whether the Ops immediate after auction have handed over all the M. V. documents to the complainant, (2) whether the vehicle of the complainant has been seized by the RTO, Koraput for want of M. V. documents, (3) whether the Ops have committed any deficiency in service by not supplying the M.V. documents to the complainant and (4) if so as to what relief?

6.                     While coming to Issue No.1 it is seen that the complainant has submitted some documents out of which affidavits of both the parties regarding purchase and sale of the vehicle, copy of Form No.29 & 30, F.34 and copy of R.C. Book are relevant for deciding this issue.  We have gone through the above referred documents and from the copy of R.C. Book it is found that the Vehicle No.OR-10F-5576 stands in the name of Branch Manager, STFC Ltd., Rourkela from 20.6.2011 whereas this vehicle was sold to the complainant during Feb., 2013. The complainant stated that the Ops have supplied Xerox copy of affidavits for his for reference.  On perusal of affidavits, it is seen from the Affidavit of Sri S.N. Tripathy, Branch Manager, STFC Ltd, Rourkela who is the owner of the vehicle that the said affidavit has not been signed by the Deponent-Sri Tripathy but unfortunately the affidavit has been duly notarized.  This type of action of the Branch Manager, Rourkela is a serious offence.  Further the Ops have supplied copy of Form No.29 and 30 for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in question on 22.5.2013.  Both the documents have been notarized but the registered owner i.e. Branch Manager, STFC Ltd., Rourkela (transferor) has not signed both the forms for effecting transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.  This action of the Ops is ridiculous but for the safety sake of their finance, the Ops on 20.4.2013 have sent duly signed Form.34 for endorsement of Hypothecation in motor vehicle No.OR-10F-5576.  In the above circumstances, we failed to understand the intention of the Ops in this case.   When they are able to send F.34 to the Registering Authority on 20.4.2013, who restrained them to sign and produce the ownership transfer documents to the said authority for clearance of documents in favour of the complainant?

7.                     As ascertained, the Ops have intentionally handed over the Xerox copy of documents which were not signed by them in order to harass the complainant.  After receipt of full consideration amount from the complainant, they have not taken any action to transfer the documents in favour of the complainant.  From the above discussions, it can be concluded that the Ops have not handed over the document for transfer of ownership of the vehicle and other M. V. documents immediate after auction and non supply of documents after auction in our opinion, amount to serious deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Accordingly the Issue No.1 is decided.

8.                     Issue No.2:- The complainant stated that due to want of M. V. documents, the vehicle was seized by the R.T.O., Koraput but the Ops stated that due to rash and negligent driving, the vehicle of the complainant was seized.  The complainant in support of his contentions has filed copy of Vehicle Checking Report issued by OMVD, Koraput where in it is stated that “No M.V. documents produced and hence liable under different Sections of M. V. Act, 1988.”  In view of above facts, the contention of the Ops that the vehicle was seized by the Police but not by the RTO, Koraput is a myth.  Now the vehicle is at Sadar P.S., Jeypore.

9.                     It is the further case of the complainant that after seizure of the vehicle, he wrote to Branch Manager, STFC Ltd., Jeypore who had conducted the auction of the alleged vehicle.  The B. M. has received the said letter of the complainant on 28.5.2014 but to no reply.  Finding no other go, the complainant has sent a notice to the Ops through his Advocate on 12.8.2014 and in reply to the said notice, the Ops stated that necessary documentation and formalities as per rules have been made successfully by them and hence no such liabilities left by them. However, the Ops have not filed the copy of documents wherein they have taken action and observed formalities for transfer of vehicle and supply of M.V. documents to the complainant.

10.                   From the documents available on record and the discussions as above, we safely come to the conclusion that the Ops have never taken effective steps for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.  Further no other M. V. documents have been supplied by the Ops for which the vehicle of the complainant was seized.  After seizure of the vehicle the complainant has wrote to the Ops on 28.5.2014 and sent notice through his Advocate on 12.8.2014 requesting transfer of ownership and supply of relevant M. V. documents for release of the vehicle but the Ops have not taken any steps.  Non release of the vehicle also must have seriously affected the livelihood of the complainant.   In our opinion, the above inaction of the Ops amounts to serious deficiency in service.

11.                   In the above facts and circumstances, the OPs are to be directed to release the M. V. documents by transferring the ownership of the vehicle.  Further due to want of M. V. documents, the vehicle was seized  for which the  complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has filed this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant is entitled for some compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant for the lapses on the part of the Ops, we feel, a sum of Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs will meet the ends of justice.

12.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicle Vides Regn. No.OR-10F-5576 and supply other M.V. documents in favour of the complainant and to pay Rs.20, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing the OP.1 is liable to pay Rs.100/- per day to the complainant from the date of this order.