By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:

            This consumer complaint is filed by the Complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

                2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  The Complainant is the registered owner of the vehicle KL-21-C-0064 Maruti Alto.  The Complainant had availed a hire purchase loan as per agreement No.SABRY0604180001.  The loan amount was completely paid and the Complainant on 31.12.2018 had sent a letter to the First Opposite Party for the cancellation of HP hypothecation and to give it to second Opposite Party for making endorsement in the RC to that effect.  But, the First Opposite Party, saying that the RC is given to the Second Opposite Party for endorsement, did not give it to the Complainant.  Whenever the Complainant had approached and enquired about this, the First Opposite Party used to say that the RC had not been returned by the Second Opposite Party after endorsement.  Though the Complainant approached and enquired the Second Opposite Party, he could not get any information regarding the RC.  None of the Opposite Parties have not transferred the RC to the Complainant till date.  On a personal enquiry, the Complainant got information that the RC has been lost from any of the Opposite Parties.  But the First Opposite Party is continuously misleading the Complainant telling one or other excuses.  So, there has been deficiency in service from the part of the First and second Opposite Party.  The Second Opposite Party has not given any reliable information regarding the RC to the Complainant.  As the Opposite Parties did not give the original RC to the Complainant, he could not sell the vehicle on fair value offer and purchase a new vehicle.  The non-return of RC to the Complainant has caused financial, mental and other loss and injury.  Hence this complaint with the following prayers to direct

1. The Opposite Parties to return the original RC of the vehicle KL-21-C-0064
2. The Second Opposite Party to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation
3. The Opposite Parties to pay cost of this complaint etc.

3.  First Opposite Party appeared before the Commission and filed version, the contents of which are as follows:-

The Complainant had availed the aforesaid loan and that was endorsed in the RC.  The RC had to be forwarded to the Complainant and the First Opposite Party believes that the same might have been sent to him.  At no time the First Opposite Party has got the RC of the Complainant.  Afterwards, when the Complainant remitted and closed the loan, the necessary documents were signed and given by the First Opposite Party.  It is the Complainant who has to get the recordings as to the cancellation of endorsement in the RC through the Second Opposite Party.  The vehicle was not registered in the Second Opposite Party office.  It was registered in Sulthan Bathery Regional Transport Office.  All other contentions are denied by the First Opposite Party stating that there has not been any deficiency in service from the part of the First Opposite Party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.  For the second Opposite Party, District Government Pleader appeared and filed version stating that KL-21-C-0064 vehicle was not registered in their office.  The Complainant had not approached the Second Opposite Party for any service.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.  For the third Opposite Party, version was filed by the District Government Pleader, the contents of which are as follows:-   

The vehicle No.KL-21-C-0064 is a motor car, registered in the name of Sri. Shibu, S/o. Chacko, Mannampurath House, Sasimala, Pulpally, Wayanad with effect from 17.02.2014 and is held under hypothecation agreement with Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Mymoon building, Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad with effect from 20.04.2016.  As per Rule 61(1) of CMV Rule 1989, an application for making an entry for termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease hypothecation referred to in sub section (3) of section 51 of MV Act shall be made in form 35 duly signed by the registered owner of the vehicle and the financier, and shall be accompanied by the original Certificate of Registration, valid documents and appropriate fee as specified in rule 81.  In this case no application pertaining to the cancellation/termination of hypothecation as per MV act and Rules has been submitted in the prescribed form to this office till date.  The Registering Authority is not aware of the financial terms of the hypothecation agreement between the registered owner and the financier.  The financial aspects and its implications are to be dealt by the parties themselves.  The Registering Authority has no objection to cancel the hypothecation entry in the Registration Certificate, if the application is submitted with prescribed fees as per Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. Hence, prayed to dismiss this complaint.

6.  Proof affidavit was filed by the Complainant, Ext.A1 to A5 marked from his side and he was examined as PW1.  Proof affidavit was filed by the First Opposite Party and its Panamaram Branch Manager, Jayesh was examined as OPW1.  Proof affidavit was filed for Second Opposite Party by K. F. Jayadevan, the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Sulthan Bathery and he was examined as OPW2 and the complaint was finally heard on 12.07.2023.

7.  On perusal of the complaint, version, affidavits, documents marked, oral evidence aduced and the arguments in hearing, the following points are raised by this Commission for consideration

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service from the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, relief and Cost..?

8.  Point No.1:-  It is the fact that the Complainant was the registered owner of the vehicle KL-21-C-0064 Maruti Alto car which had a hypothecation with the financier, First Opposite Party.  It is admitted that the loan was fully remitted and closed by the Complainant.  Hence, the Complainant was badly in need of the RC of the vehicle and the NOC of the financier etc.  The allegation of the Complainant is that though he approached the First Opposite Party for getting the RC, they did not give it to the Complainant; instead they told the Complainant that the RC was sent to the Second Opposite Party for endorsement.  In oral examination OPW1 has stated that “]cmXn¡mc³ hmbv] FSp¡p¶ kabw branch  D­v. Finance sN¿pt_mÄ original RC, Aadhaar Card, Pan Card F¶o documents hm§n shbv¡mdp­v.  XpSÀ¶v HP endorsement \v th­n RT Office s\ kao]n¡mdp­v.  ]cmXn¡mcsâ RC bn HP endorsement \S¯nbn«p­v.  R§Ä aptJ\bmWv \S¯nbn«pffXv.    Ext.A4, I¼\nbntebv¡v ]cmXn¡mc³ Ab¨XmWv. RC ]cmXn¡mc\v e`n¨n«nà F¶mWv ]dªncn¡p¶Xv.  RC book ]cmXn¡mc\v e`n¨n«nà F¶mWv ]dªncn¡p¶Xv.  RC book ]cmXn¡mc\v Ab¨p sImSp¯p F¶v ]dªncn¡p¶Xv tcJbpsS ASnØm\¯neÃ.  km[mcWbmbn RC bpw A\p_Ô tcJIfpw hm§mdp­v.  A{]Imcw hm§nb tcJIÄ 2 Dw 3 Dw FXrI£nIÄ¡v  submit sNbvXXnsâ acknowledgment tImSXnbn lmPcm¡nbn«nÔ.

9.  From the above deposition of OPW1, it is very clear that the RC was received and kept by the First Opposite Party at the time of hire purchase hypothecation agreement.  The First Opposite Party has not produced any document to prove that the RC was transferred either to the Second Opposite Party or Third Opposite Party or to the Complainant for endorsement in the RC as to cancel the hypothecation. Second Opposite Party has also stated that nobody has approached them with this issue and they denied that the RC is with them.  Third Opposite Party has also stated that nobody has approached them with this issue.  From the above discussion, it is evident that the RC was under the custody of First Opposite Party.  Receiving the RC of the Complainant for hypothecation purpose and after closing the loan amount not delivering the RC either to the Complainant or to the Regional Transport Officer is nothing but deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of First Opposite Party.  No proof is produced to show that the RC is with Second Opposite Party.  Second Opposite Party has stated that the said vehicle was not registered in their office but in the office of the Third Opposite Party.  Second and Third Opposite Party has stated that the Complainant has not submitted any application in this regard to their offices. Third Opposite Party has stated that they will do the needful as per law, if an application is submitted before them.  Therefore it is evident that there has not been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the side of Second and Third Opposite Party. It is seen that the validity of the NOC issued by First Opposite Party is expired, as it was valid only for thirty days from the date of its issue, ie, 31.12.2018.  So, deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is undoubtedly proved against First Opposite Party only.

10.  Since deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is proved against the First Opposite Party, they are liable to pay compensation and cost of this proceedings to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the First Opposite Party is directed to

1. Return the original RC of vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-21-C-0064, Maruti Alto Car to the Complainant and if the original RC is irrecoverably lost from their custody, to get an affidavit signed by a Notary Public and to transfer the Notary attested affidavit along with all the documents and NOC required for cancellation of Hypothecation endorsement in the RC, to the Complainant
2. Third Opposite Party is directed to issue a duplicate RC on the basis of the Notary attested affidavit to the Complainant, on completion of other legal formalities.
3. The First Opposite Party is directed to Pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice, to the Complainant
4. The First Opposite Party is directed to Pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as cost of this proceedings to the Complainant.

The above order shall be obeyed by the parties concerned within one month from the date of receipt of this Order failing which the amounts will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19^th day of August 2023.

Date of Filing:-04.10.2019

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-                   

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              Shibu. M.C.                                      Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Jayesh. P. R.                                     Branch Manager.

OPW2.          K. R. Jaidevan.                                 Government Servant.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.                  Copy of No Objection Certificate.                     Dt:31.12.20218.

A2.                  Copy of Notice of Termination of an Agreement of Hire

Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation.

A3.                  Copy of Letter.                                                        Dt:04.04.2019.

A4.                  Postal Receipt.                                                        Dt:04.04.2019.

A5.                  Acknowledgment Card.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

Nil.                             

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

sD/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-