D.O.F:17/08/2021

                                                                                                         D.O.O:29/12/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.137/2021

    Dated this, the 29^th day of December 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                              : MEMBER

Mr.Sayyad Basheer Thangal, aged 76 years

S/o Pookoya Thangal

Re/at H. No.179/8, Menangod House

Cheroor Post, Near Cheroor River

Kasaragod Taluk & District – 671123.

(Adv: Chaithanya M.A.)                                                                           : Complainant

                                                                        And

1. The Branch Manager

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd

1^st Floor, Hariprasanna Complex

NH 66, Thokkottu, Ullal Post, Mangalore – 575020.

2. The Managing Director

Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd

Door No.101-105, 1^st Floor, B Wing

Shiv Chambers, Sector – II, C.B.D.

Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400614.

(Adv: Balachandran K, for OP 1 & 2)

3. The Regional Transport Officer

The R.T.O., Civil Station, Vidyanagar Post

Kasaragod Taluk & District – 671123.                                      : Opposite Parties

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  : PRESIDENT

            The case of the complainant is that he is the registered owner of the Vehicle bearing registration No: KL 13 J 1477.  The complainant availed a loan from opposite party No.1 for purchasing the vehicle and agreed to repay by monthly instalment.  But the complainant could not repay the loan amount as per the agreement.  The opposite party No.1 seized the vehicle from the custody of the complainant.  The complainant says that the opposite party has not given opportunity to settle the dispute but without giving notice, seized the vehicle.  On 15/01/2018, the complainant received a RR notice on behalf of opposite party No.3, demanding the complainant to pay Rs.30,915/- being the motor vehicle tax for the above said seized vehicle.  The complainant paid the amount as demanded by the opposite party No.3.

Further the complainant apprehends that the opposite party No.1 is running the vehicle without proper documents.  The complainant prays for a direction to opposite party to refund the amount paid to opposite party No.3 and compensation from opposite party No.1 and to transfer of R.C.

            The opposite party No.1, 2 filed written version denying the allegations in the complaint.  It is averred that the complainant obtained loan of Rs.4,50,000/- from opposite party agreed to repay Rs.7,07,654/- by 48 EMI.  On 05/10/2021, there is a due of Rs.4,96,805/-, the complainant paid only Rs.2,46,688/- to the loan due.  The complainant surrendered the vehicle.  The complainant consented to sell the vehicle on public auction.  There is no deficiency in service and the complainant is not entitled for any relief and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            Here, the complainant has not tried to prove the case by adducing evidence.  Some photocopies of documents were produced, but not proved as per the mandate of law.  Repeated chances were given to the complainant to prove the case by adducing proper evidence.  In the absence of reliable evidence, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/