By Smt. Bindu. R,  President:

          This  Consumer Complaint is filed by A.J. Kuriyan, S/o. Joseph,  Ambalathinkal  (House),  P.O.  Manalvayal, Irulam Village,  Wayanad (District) alleging  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice  against the Manager,  Nitin Sogani, No.49, Erulappan Street,   2^nd  Floor,  Sowcarpet, Chennai- 600 001as Opposite Party in the  complaint.

          2. The crux of the complaint is that the Complainant had availed a loan for Rs.70,000/-  for his LMV Motor Car bearing  No. KL 4T 8195 by entering in to an HP Agreement for the same on 09.04.2010.  Complainant states that he had paid back the principal amount along with interest in 24  instalments from 06.05.2010  to 06.04.2012.  The Complainant further  states that he had  repaid  the entire amount as per the repayment  chart and thereafter approached  the Opposite Party at their office at Chennai for getting  clearance certificate required for cancellation of hypothecation/Hire purchase  agreement  from  Registration Certificate  and has sent all the original  receipts to the Opposite Party in the year 2013 itself.  The Complainant thereafter sent a registered  lawyer notice to the Opposite Party which  according to the Complainant is returned with endorsement by postal  authorities as “Left”.  The Complainant states that the  Opposite Party is not  at all ready to issue no objection certificate to the Complainant which is a clear case of deficiency of service and therefore the  Complainant  approached the Commission  seeking  for issuing  a direction to the Opposite Party to issue a certificate of cancellation of hypothecation along with other reliefs.

          3. Even though notice was sent to the  Opposite Party,  the notice was returned by postal authorities with endorsement “Left” and therefore the notice  was served to the Opposite Party by way  of  advertisement in  newspaper  having  circulation at the address of the  Opposite Party  (Malai Malar dated 15.10.2023).  The Opposite Party had not made appearance before the Commission on  the  date of posting  ie on 17.10.2023  or  on  any subsequent date and hence set exparte and posted for evidence of the Complainant.

          4. Complainant had produced  two documents only out of which one is   marked as Ext.A1 which is  the copy of the  R.C Book and filed proof affidavit.  The Complainant was examined as PW1.

          5. The following  are the main points to be examined in this case to derive into an inference in the complaint.

1.  Whether  the Complainant had proved  deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If so,  whether the Complainant is eligible to get any relief as prayed for by the Complainant?
3. Cost  of the proceedings if any.

6. The Commission  had  examined  chief affidavit  filed by the Complainant

and all the other records and documents  available before the Commission.   The  case of the Complainant is that the Complainant had availed a loan from the Opposite Party for Rs.70,000/- for his motor car and the vehicle was hypothecated to the  Opposite Party and thereafter the Complainant had paid back the entire loan amount along with interest but the Opposite Party had not cancelled the hypothecation even though the Complainant had  produced the receipts before the Opposite Party and requested  the Opposite Party to recall the hypothecation.

          7. On examination of the evidences produced by the Complainant, nothing is seen made available by the Complainant before  the Commission to ensure that the Complainant had availed  an amount of Rs.70,000/- from the Opposite Party hypothecating  the vehicle bearing No.KL 4T 8195 and also that the Complainant had paid  back to them the amount and interest thus availed  from the Opposite Party.  Complainant had produced Ext.A1  only,  which is a copy of  Registration Certificate  (Registration number is not legible)  on which an endorsement is seen  made regarding  the hypothecation/        Hire purchase /Lease agreement,  the owner of which is shown as Kurian, S/o. Joseph,  12/791,  Ambalathinkal House, Manalvayal (Post),  Poothadi,  Wayanad  09.04.2010.

          8. There is no records or evidence before the Commission to ascertain the accuracy and certainty of the  argument of the Complainant  regarding the repayment of loan etc.  More over the validity of the  Registration  of the vehicle is noted in Ext.A1 is from 10.10.2005  to 09.10.2020,  where as the complaint is filed on 20.01.2021  ie  after the expiry of the registration period.

          9. Even on the date of  filing the complaint,  as per the evidence produced by the Complainant (Ext.A1)  the vehicle was  not having a valid registration. 

          10. Taking into  consideration all the above  aspects,  the Commission observes  that the Complainant had failed to prove his case on merit and therefore point No.1 is  found against the  Complainant.

          11. Since  point No.1 is found against the Complainant we do not  have analysed point No. 2  & 3  and in the result the  complaint  is dismissed.

          Hence  CC 38/2021 is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 18^th   day of January 2024.

          Date of filing:22.02.2021.

                                                                                   PRESIDENT    :  Sd/-                                                      

MEMBER        :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Kurian A.J.                    Complainant.                            

Witness for the Opposite Party:

Nil.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1.       Copy of Certificate of Registration.          

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

  Nil.