By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party No.1 and 2 to return the original Registration Certificate of Bajaj three wheeler goods auto having Registration No. KL 12 C 4284 and in default of return of Original Registration Certificate, the opposite party No.3 may be directed to issue duplicate Registration Certificate for the vehicle and to cancel the loan endorsement on production of no objection Certificate and to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is the Registered owner of Bajaj Three Wheeler Autorickshaw having Registration No. KL 12 C 4284 which is registered by opposite party No.3. The complainant purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1 from Kalpetta. The complainant had taken loan from opposite party No.2 through opposite party No.1 and as per the terms of the loan the complainant paid the entire loan amount and cleared the liability and opposite party No.2 gave no objection certificate for cancellation of loan endorsement. But opposite party No.1 and 2 failed to return the original Registration Certificate. As a result, the complainant could not renew the fitness certificate from 26.04.2010 and would not ply the vehicle for any purpose and heavy financial loss is sustained. The complainant send lawyer notice to opposite party No.2 on 25.11.2010 but opposite party No.2 failed to act. Hence this complaint.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of opposite party No.1, opposite party No.1 denied the allegation and stated that the original or photocopy of Registration Certificate is not kept by opposite party No.1 and not entrusted to opposite party No.1 by the complainant or anyone else. In the version of opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.2 contented that the complainant never handed over or submitted the original Registration Certificate with opposite party No.2. This opposite party No.2 do not have custody of Registration Certificate. No deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2..
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?.
3. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and filed documents. The complainant is examined as PW1 and documents marked as Ext.A1 to A5. Opposite party No.2 is examined as OPW1 and opposite party No.1 is examined as OPW2. On going through the evidences of PW1, the PW1 stated before the Forum that PW1 handed over the cheque leaf, key of vehicle and pan card to opposite party No.1. PW1 never deposed that the original Registration Certificate is handed over to opposite party No.1 at any time. More over, there is no wisper in the evidence of PW1, to the effect that PW1 handed over the original Registration Certificate to opposite party No.2 also. Absolutely there is no evidence before the Forum that with whom the original Registration Certificate was entrusted by the complainant at the time of availing loan. The opposite party No.1 and 2 specifically denied such entrustment of Registration Certificate with them. When there is denial from the part of opposite party No.1 and 2, the burden is upon the complainant to prove such entrustment. But the complainant failed to prove it. If the original Registration Certificate is lost, there is provision to get duplicate
Registration Certificate from opposite party No.3. So by analyzing the entire evidences, the Forum found that no deficiency of service can be attributed over opposite party No.1 and 2 since the complainant failed to prove the case. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since Point No.1 is found against the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.3 is directed to issue duplicate Registration Certificate to the complainant if proper application as per rules is filed by the complainant. The opposite parties No.1 and 2 is directed to give all assistance required to the complainant in getting duplicate Registration Certificate from opposite party No.3. Opposite party No.3 is directed to cancel the loan endorsement from the Registration Certificate if No Objection Certificate is produced by the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November 2014.
Date of Filing: 23.05.2012.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Baburaj. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
OPW1. Amrith Babu. Collection Officer, Bajaj Finance, Calicut.
OPW2. Joseph. P&A Manager, KVR Motors, Calicut.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:25.11.2010.
A2. Postal Receipt.
A3. Acknowledgment Card.
A4. Copy of Registration Certificate.
A5. Copy of No Objection Certificate as per Form No.35.
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
