CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.76/10
Friday the 30th day of December, 2011
Petitioner : John Varkey,
Kudilil Parambil
Marangattupalli PO,
Pala.
(Adv.Abijith S)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
TVS Finance and Service Ltd.
Jayalakshmi Estates,
29, Haddour Raod,
Chennai-600 006.
2) The Manager,
TVS Business Centre,
Chittoor Road,
Ernakulam.
(Adv.Mini R.Menon)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 23/03/10, is as follows:-
Petitioner availed financial assistance from the opposite party for the purchase of a Motor Cycle, as per the agreement between the petitioner and opposite party. Petitioner has to pay an amount of Rs.39,420/- in total. Petitioner repaid an amount of Rs.1314/- in 30 equal installments. Petitioner remitted the entire amount and closed the loan. As per the letter forwarded by the opposite party to the petitioner, dtd 31/10/09, opposite party intimated the petitioner that hire purchase agreement is terminated on 31/10/09. Opposite party also forwarded no objection letter addressed to insurance company, registering authority and hire purchase termination notice to enable the petitioner to get the vehicle and policy changed in his name. According to the petitioner even after termination of the loan opposite party is keeping the original registration certificate. On 20/9/09 opposite party issued a letter to the petitioner demanding an EMI of Rs. 539/-. Act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So he prays for a direction to the opposite party to give back original certificate of registration. Petitioner claims cost and compensation.
Opposite party entered appearance and filed joint version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the tenor period for the loan is three years that is from 16/12/04 to 10/2/07. But the petitioner closed the loan on 25/9/09. At the time of settlement of loan opposite parties informed the petitioner that the R.C book is not received from the dealer. For the above reason opposite parties waived the total due amount at the time of settlement. According to the opposite party Rs.539/- of EMI is pending. Opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service. So they prayed for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs.
Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext.A1 to A11 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext.B1 document on the side of the opposite parties.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that opposite party has not returned the original registration certificate even after acceptance of entire loan amount. Petitioner produced a letter dtd 31/10/09 said document is marked as Ext.A3. As per Ext.A3 opposite party confirm that the hire purchase agreement between the petitioner and opposite party was terminated with immediate effect. Ext.A5 is the letter issued to the Branch Manager of the insurance company stating that they have no objection for changing the policy. Ext.A3 is a letter addressed to the registering authority stating no objection for change of ownership. Ext.A6 is the lawyer’s notice issued by the petitioner to the opposite party demanding return of the original Registration Certificate of vehicle. Opposite party admitted that they accepted original Registration certificate at the time of the issuance of the loan. Opposite party has no case that they return the original R.C in their version or in counter affidavit. Opposite party stated that they had not received the R.C book from the dealer. In our view act of the opposite party in not returning the R.C book even after termination of the loan amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result, opposite party is ordered to return the original certificate of registration to the petitioner if the original R.C is not returned as directed petitioner is entitled for a compensation of Rs.12,000/-. In case of opposite party is unable to return the R.C they are directed to comply of the formalities for getting a duplicate R.C book in addition to payment of compensation. Without saying what had happened caused much inconvenience loss mental agony and sufferings to the petitioner. So the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.8000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as litigation cost to the petitioner.
Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied as directed award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of filing of the petition till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of R.C
Ext.A2-policy certificate cum policy schedule
Ext.A3-No objection certificate issued by TVS company
Ext.A4-Termination letter
Ext.A5-No objection certificate infavour of the insurance company
Ext.A6-Lawyer’s notice
Ext.A7-Postal receipts
Ext.A8-AD cards
Ext.A9-New vehicle delivery note
Ext.A10- Invoice
Ext.A11-Demand notice for Rs.539/-
Ext.A12-loan closing cash receipt
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1- Statement of Accounts.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
