ORDER SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. E. Rajappan, has filed this complaint against the opposite parties on 25.01.2010 alleging deficiency in service. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased a Motor Cycle bearing No. CT/100 from the second opposite party on 31.01.2005 with the finance of the opposite parties. It was on the basis of 36 monthly installments, after accepting all the terms and conditions of the opposite parties. He had repaid the installments promptly after noting the details in the Book. On 04.01.2009 he had remitted the entire remittances and closed the Account. As such the opposite parties have entrusted the documents ie. NOC No: 435324, Form No: 14, NOC No: 435334 – and Form No: 35 to him. But the opposite parties have not returned to RC Book of the vehicle and one key of the said vehicle to him, even though he had closed the Loan A/c. He had contacted the opposite parties in person several times and contacted through phone several times for the said matter. He could not transfer the said vehicle in his name through the RT Office. In the absence of presenting the RC book and NOC before the RT Office, he had sustained lot of inconvenience and difficulties in connection with the Registration purpose and the other formalities. Since there was no positive steps to release the RC book and one key of the said vehicle from the opposite parties, he has filed this complaint before the Forum, seeking relief. 2. Notices were sent to the opposite parties. They have accepted the notice. 1st opposite party entered appearance and filed version. Second opposite party absent. Considering the absence of the second opposite party, they were declared as ex parte. 3. In the version of the opposite party, it is stated that the complainant has not remitted the entire amount and its interest. It is further stated that the RC book of the said vehicle is not kept with them and that the original of the RC book is received by the registered owner from the RTO. There is no wisper about the keeping of the RC book by the company in the agreement in between the complainant and the first opposite party. It is stated that the first opposite party has no hesitation to issue the proper letters to the RTO in issuing the duplicate RC book to the complainant, and that if the complainant proves that he has remitted the entire loan amount and its interests the first opposite party is ready to issue proper letters to the RTO to cancel the hypothecation in the RC book. It is stated that the complainant has not approached the first opposite party to release the original RC book, and he has not filed any written complaint before the first opposite party with regard to the RC book. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues for considerations. 1. Whether there is deficiently in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for? 3. Compensation and costs? 5. Issues 1 and 3:- Complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and produced documents in evidence – Ext. A1 and A2 – marked. Ext. A1 is the Letter dtd. 04.11.2009 of the first opposite party issued to the complainant. The Letter shows as follows:- “This is to certify that the Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd (Auto) has duly received full payment due to them under the purchase finance agreement No. 415015654 dtd. 31.01.05 and all rights of Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. over the CT/100 DLX bearing Reg. No. – referred to in the said agreement stands extinguished and at an end from the date thereof.” The letter was in the Form No. 14 and it was duly signed. Ext. A2 is the Form No. 35, issued to the complainant by the opposite party in connection with the termination of agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease/Hypothecation. 6. Opposite parties have not filed any proof affidavit or any documents in evidence, even though several chances are given for them. 7. We have heard the matter in detail and examined the entire evidence of this case. It is seen that the complainant has remitted the entire amount payable to the opposite parties by way of Loan taken by him at the time of purchase of the said vehicle. Ext. A2 shows that matter. After, the clearance of the loan amount the opposite parties have issued the required documents for producing the same before the RTO, for deleting the hypothecation charge. During the arguments of this matter, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have not returned the RC book and one key of the said vehicle to the complainant, even though the complainant had remitted the entire amount with the opposite parties and closed the A/c. Since the complainant had closed the A/c there is no justification on the part of the opposite parties in keeping the RC book and one of the key of the said vehicle with them, without assigning any reason. By keeping the RC book, and one key of the said vehicle with the opposite parties and refusing to return the same to the complainant, is to be treated as deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice. The contentions raised by the first opposite parties regarding the issue involved in this matter, have no locus standi and it cannot be accepted a valid ground for denial of the return of the key of the vehicle and the RC book to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get back the above said item, from the opposite parties. The entire actions of the opposite parties are highly illegal, arbitrary, and unauthorized. The whole aspects of this matter show that there is deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties. So the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and costs, together with the return of the RC book, and key of the vehicle. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. Hence we are of the view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite parties to return the original RC book and one key of the said vehicle to the complainant along with the required documents to delete the hypothecation charge in the RC book, through the RTO, together with a compensation amount of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for the mental agony, physical strain, in convenience and loss of the complainant, due to the deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties by way of retaining the RC book of the said vehicle and its key without any reason and delay in return the same to the complainant, and further pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. Complaint allowed. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of July, 2010. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- Ext. A1 - Letter dtd. 04.11.2009 (Photocopy) Ext. A2 - Form No. 35 (Photocopy) Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F. Typed by:- vo/- Compared by:-
| | [HONORABLE K.Anirudhan] Member[HONORABLE JIMMY KORAH] PRESIDENT | | 
