Kerala

Malappuram

OP/02/77

C.P MUHAMMED KOYA, TEAK GARDEN HOUSE - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, ACC ENTERPRICES - Opp.Party(s)

E.K MUHAMMED FIROZ

12 Feb 2008

ORDER


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
MALAPPURAM
consumer case(CC) No. OP/02/77

C.P MUHAMMED KOYA, TEAK GARDEN HOUSE
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

THE MANAGER, ACC ENTERPRICES
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI 2. K.T. SIDHIQ

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President, 1. Complainant is aggrieved that even after repayment of finance opposite party has not issued Clearance Certificate and not returned the Original Registration Certificate, duplicate key, signed blank cheque and stamp papers. 2. Opposite party filed version contending that complainanthas availed finance Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Pune. To the knowledge of opposite party complainant has already been given Clearance Certificate. That complainant informed opposite party that he lost the original Registration Certificate and requested opposite party to obtain duplicate. Opposite party has received duplicate after incurring expenses. That opposite party is willing to give the duplicate Registration Certificate to complainant provided complainant pays the expenses incurred by opposite party. That there is no deficiency and complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Ext.P1 to P7 marked on the side of complainant. No affidavit or documents filed on behalf of opposite party. 4. It is affirmed by complainant that he has handed over the Original Registration Certificate (R.C.) of his motor cycle KL-10G-1941 to Opposite party along with duplicate key, signed blank stamp papers and blank cheque leaves. Repayment of entire loan amount is not disputed. The contention raised by opposite party in the version is that he has no connection with the finance availed by complainant and that the finance was availed from Bajaj Auto Fiannce Ltd., Pune. Ext.P1 and P2 are the receipts issued by opposite party on behalf of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Pune. Ext.P1 and P2 comply proves the case of complainant, to be probable and believable. Complainant is legally entitled to get back the original Registration Certificate and duplicate key entrusted with opposite party. Ext.P3 to P6 are the notices issued on the side of complainant requesting to return the original Registration Certificate. Opposite party has not issued any rely to these notices. In version opposite party submitted that he is in possession of duplicate Registration Certificate. This document was produced by opposite party as per orders in the petition filed by complainant to cause production of the document. Duplicate Registration Certificate produced on 22-1-2008 by opposite party before the Forum is Ext.X1. On perusal of Ext.X1 it is seen that the endorsement in favour of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., Pune is cancelled in the year 2000. So this relief is satisfied. According to complainant opposite party informed that Original Registration Certificate was lost in their custody. Complainant was asked to effect necessary advertisement to obtain duplicate Registration Certificate. Complainant effected the advertisement of loss of Registration Certificate as per Ext.P7. This is clear from the endorsement in Ext.X1. The duplicate Registration Certificate was retained by opposite party claiming the charges incurred for obtaining the duplicate. In fact opposite party produced the Ext.X1 before court along with a memo stating that Rs.2200/- was incurred as expenses of taking duplicate. The act of opposite party in not returning the original Registration Certificate entrusted and retaining the duplicate amounts to deficiency in service. 5. In the result we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to complainant, along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Ext.X1 duplicate copy of Registration Certificate of vehicle No.KL-10-G-1841 shall be given to complainant on his making a request for the same. Dated this 12th day of February, 2008. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P7 Ext.P1 : Photo copy of the receipt for Rs.5925/- dated, 28-3-1998 by opposite party to complainant. Ext.P2 : Photo copy of the receipt for Rs.1200/- dated, 4-9-2000 by opposite party to complainant. Ext.P3 : Photo copy of the letter and postal receipt dated, 11-3-2000 sent by complainant to opposite party. Ext.P4 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 22-3-2000 sent by complainant to opposite party. Ext.P5 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 10-11-2001 sent by complainant to opposite party. Ext.P6 : Photo copy of the letter and postal receipt dated, 16-11-2001 sent by complainant to opposite party. Ext.P7 : Photo copy of the press cutting in Madhyamam Daily Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Court document marked : Ext.X1 Ext.X1 : Duplicate copy of Registration Certificate. C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER




......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI
......................K.T. SIDHIQ