Date of filing : 20-05-2010
Date of order : 29-07-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 120/2011
Dated this, the 29th day of July 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Vamankumar.A, } Complainant
S/o.Govindan Nair,
Laxmi Nivas, Shankaranakkad,
Kolathur.Po, Chengala.Via,
Kasaragod Taluk.
(Adv.C.Krishnakumar, Kasaragod)
1. The Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd, } Opposite parties
Near Baby Memorial Hospital,
Bye-Pass Road, Kozhikode.
2. The Manager, H.D.F.C Bank Ltd,
Seamax Tower, Kannur Road,
Vandipetta, Nadakkavu, Kozhikode,
(Adv. A.Radhakrishnan, Hosdurg)
3. Krishnan, Namans Motors,
Nullipady, Kasaragod.
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
This complaint is filed by Sri. Vamankumar alleging deficiency in service against opposite parties.
The facts of the complainant in brief are as follows:
That the complainant availed a loan of `31,500/- from opposite parties 1& 2 at the instigation of opposite party No.3 for purchasing of a TVS Motor Cycle two wheeler. For the above loan, complainant entered into an HP agreement with opposite party No.1 and 2. As per the agreement the complainant has to pay `1281/- per month in 30 equal instalments. For the payment the opposite party obtained 30 cheque leaves for 1281/-each. The instalments starts from 5-11-2005 and ends on 5-4-2008 while giving loan the opposite parties retained original RC Book and spare key of the vehicle. The complainant has paid the entire loan in time through his account. After clearance of the loan the complainant approached the opposite party for obtaining his vehicular documents. But the opposite parties promised that the vehicular documents will be returned within one month. But the opposite parties has not returned back the documents after one month. Then the complainant went to the office of opposite parties at Kozhikode many times to obtain the documents. But the opposite parties failed to provide the documents.
2. It is further submitted that the complainant being a professional photographer forced to travel several parts of the District by taking his vehicle without valid records in hands and he is forced to remit fine before the authorities. The complainant had sent a registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties requesting the documents. But the opposite parties neither complied the request in the notice nor send any reply. Hence this complaint is filed for necessary relief.
3. On receipt of notice from this Forum the 1st and 2nd opposite party appeared through counsel and filed their version. Opposite party No.3 not appeared and set exparte.
4. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed version. In the version these opposite parties admitting the availing of loan by complainant from these opposite parties and also admits the payment of entire loan amount with interest by the complainant. But the opposite parties denied the allegation that after remitting the entire loan amount with interest the complainant approached the opposite parties for obtaining the NOC for cancellation of hypothecation in RC Book of the vehicle and obtained 2 blank cheque leaves of Bank. The opposite party submits that complainant never directly approached this opposite party either in any of its branches and after receiving the notice the opposite party informed the complainant to approach directly and personal presence of the complainant is a must for signing the document, but the complainant has not approached directly so far and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation which he prayed for.
5. The complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts A1 to A4 documents marked and opposite parties legal Manager is examined as DW1 and Exts B1 to B3 marked. The complainant has filed a memo stating that he is not seeking any relief against opposite partyNo.3.
6. Considering all the above aspects the following issued raised for consideration.
Whether there is any deficiency in service against opposite parties and if so, what is the relief?
7. Here the specific case of the complainant is that the opposite parties has not given the vehicular documents after full satisfaction of the loan amount with interest. According to opposite parties the complainant has not approached personally to get the vehicular documents. The opposite party has produced all the vehicular documents relating to the complainant before this Forum during the pendency of the proceedings. But the complainant was not willing to withdraw from the case without compensation.
8. It is admitted that the opposite parties retained the RC with them. Retaining the RC Book with the financier itself is a deficiency of service. Because the right of the financier is well protected by Endorsement of HP on the RC as per S.51 of Motor Vehicle Act. The No objection certificate of the financier is required for the renewal of fitness as well as the transfer of vehicle to another person. Further the non-keeping of the RC with the vehicle is an offence under Motor Vehicles Act. As far as a law abiding citizen is concerned a vehicle without an RC is equal to a vehicle without tyre.
9. It is evident from Ext.A1 that the complainant approached the opposite parties for getting the vehicular documents. The opposite parties neither complied the demands made in Ext.A1 nor sent any reply to the above said notice. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant has not approached the opposite parties and hence the RC is not returned. Had it been so they should have replied in Ext.A1 stating that reason. So it is clear that this defence is taken only for the purpose of the case without any bonafidies.
Hence we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay `3000/- to the complainant towards compensation and also to pay `2000/- towards cost of this proceedings. Opposite party is also directed to take back the Original RC, HP termination letter and NOC produced before the Forum and hand over to the complainant. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 23-03-2009 Copy of lawyer notice.
A2. Series (3 Nos) Acknowledgements
A3.Photocopy of pass book of Vaman Kumar.
A4.Series (3 Nos) Train tickets.
B1. Certificate of Registration of Motor Vehicles of Vaman Kumar.
B2.Closure letter issued is HDFC Bank.
B3.No Objection Certificate issued HDFC Bank.
PW1. Vamankumar
DW1Sojankumar.U.
-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
