D.O.F:26/07/2019
D.O.O:19/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.152/2019
Dated this, the 19th day of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Shamsudheen.T.P, aged 50 years,
S/o. C.H.Moidu,
R/at Thoufeeque Mahal, : Complainant
Periyot Uppilikai (P.O),
Nileshwar (Via),
HosdurgTaluk, Kasaragod Dist.
(Adv.T.V. Vijayan)
And
The Manager,
Shriram Finance Company Ltd, : Opposite Party
Kanhangad,
(P.O) Kanhangad
(Adv. Babuchandran.K)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is as follows: The complainant is the owner of the vehicle No.KL14C 749(LMV goods carrier Trade). He obtained a loan of Rs.1,90,000/-for the above vehicle from the opposite party and he had repaid almost entire amount in time. Thereafter when the complainant requested the return of documents handed over at the time of availing loan, the opposite party started criminal and civil litigations against him. The opposite party filed criminal complaint before JFMC, Kasaragod, which was dismissed with a finding that the accused is not liable to pay the amount. Then the opposite party initiated arbitration proceedings and obtained an award against the complainant. The complainant filed an OP before the District Court Kasaragod and the above said award was got set aside. The opposite party seized the vehicle of the complainant in 2017 and sold the same in public auction to a third person, who is not known to the complainant. More over the opposite party obtained the signature of the complainant for concluding the auction. But the RTO issued notice to the complainant for recovery of Tax arrears for which he is not liable to pay. On 10.02.2019, the complainant received a reminder notice from the RTO to pay Rs.59,270/- as additional Tax. The complainant issued a registered notice to the opposite party to take necessary steps to exclude him from the proceedings of RTO, but there was no response. There after the complainant received a demand notice for initiating RR proceedings. The complainant suffered mental agony and hardships, due to the negligence and service deficiency of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to approach the RTO to stop action against the complainant and to pay compensation and costs.
The opposite party entered in appearance through their counsel, who filed the written version.
As per the version of the opposite party, the complaint is false, frivolous and not maintainable. The opposite party admitted that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle No.KL14C 749(LMV goods carrier Trade) and he obtained a loan of Rs.1,90,000/-for the above vehicle from the opposite party. But the contentions that he had repaid almost entire amount in time and that there after the complainant requested the return of documents handed over at the time of availing loan etc. are denied. The opposite party admitted that their manager initiated criminal and civil litigations,but denied that the criminal complaint filed before JFMC, Kasaragod was dismissed with a finding that the accused is not liable to pay the amount covered by the cheque. The opposite party admitted that they initiated arbitration proceedings and an award was passed against the complainant. The complainant filed an OP before the District Court Kasaragod and the above said award was got set aside. The other contentions that the opposite party seized the vehicle of the complainant in 2017 and sold the same in public auction to a third person, who is not known to the complainant and that more over the opposite party obtained the signature of the complainant for concluding the auction and that but the RTO issued notice the complainant for recovery of Tax arrears for which he is not liable to pay and that on 10.02.2019 the complainant received a reminder notice from the RTO to pay Rs.59,270/- as additional Tax and that the complainant issued a registered notice to the opposite party to take necessary steps to exclude him from the proceedings of RTO, but there was no response and that after the complainant received a demand notice for initiating RR proceedings and that the complainant suffered this kind of harassments only due to the negligence and service deficiency of the opposite party etc. are false and denied. The opposite party submitted that the complainant sold the vehicle No.KL14C 749(LMV goods carrier Trade) to one Mr. Vijayan S/O Govindan, Ramandali Village of Kannur Dist as per the agreement dated 03.10.2006 without the knowledge and consent of the opposite party. The Opposite party had neither seized nor sold the vehicle. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay road tax. The complainant filed the complaint by suppressing the material facts. The purchaser of the vehicle is a necessary party in this case.
There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked documents Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 17.12.2018 issued by the RTO to the complainant, Ext.A2 is the Copy of Lawyers notice issued to the opposite party on behalf of the complainant, Ext.A3 is the Postal A/D card, Ext.A4 is the Demand notice dated 16.04.2019 for RR proceedings issued by Joint RTO to the complainant. He is cross examined as PW1 and Ext.B1 is marked during cross examination. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence, but they produced some other documents also, which are marked as Ext.B2 and B3. The Ext.B1 is a copy of the agreement dated 03.10.2006 executed in between the complainant and one Mr. M. Vijayan, Ext.B2 is the certified copy of the petition filed by the complainant in OPNo.40/2011, Ext.B3 is the certified copy of the order in the OPNo.40/2011on the file of District Judge, Kasaragod.
Based on the pleadings of the rival parties, the following issued are framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
- If so, what is the relief ?
For convenience both these issues are considered together. This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to approach the RTO to stop action against the complainant and to pay compensation and costs. The complainant is the owner of the vehicle No.KL14C 749(LMV goods carrier Trade) and he obtained a loan of Rs.1,90,000/-for the above vehicle from the opposite party. The vehicle of the complainant was seized by the opposite party in 2017 and sold in public auction to a third person, who is not known to the complainant. So, the complainant is not liable to pay road tax of the vehicle and he must be excluded from the proceedings of the RTO for the recovery of the road tax. The complainant produced Ext.A1, the notice dated 17.12.2018 issued by the RTO and Ext.A4, the Demand notice dated 16.04.2019 for RR proceedings issued by Joint RTO to show that RR proceedings is pending against the complainant.
The opposite party submits that they had neither seized nor sold the vehicle. It was the complainant, who sold the vehicle No.KL14C 749(LMV Goods Carrier Trade) to one Mr. Vijayan S/O Govindan, Ramandali Village of Kannur District as per the agreement dated 03.10.2006, without the knowledge and consent of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party is not liable to pay road tax. The complainant filed the complaint by suppressing the material facts.
The opposite party produced the Ext.B1, which is a copy of the agreement dated 03.10.2006 executed in between the complainant and one Mr. M. Vijayan. The Ext.B1 would show that the complainant had handed over the possession of the vehicle to one M. Vijayan as per some terms and conditions. The complainant would argue that the Ext.B1 is only a photostat copy having no evidentiary value. Even though the complainant denied the execution of such an agreement and the sale of the vehicle, he had admitted the signature in the Ext.B1during the cross examination.
The opposite party also produced Ext.B2 and Ext.B3, which would show that the complainant had admitted the sale of the vehicle to one Vijayan before the court of District Judge, Kasaragod. In the Ext.B2, the certified copy of the petition filed by the complainant in OPNo.40/2011,in Para6, it is stated by the complainant that, “More over it is specifically stated (before the Arbitrator)by the petitioners that they have underwent treatment from KMC Hospital Attavar and then the vehicle was transferred to Vijayan with consent and knowledge of the claimant”. The fact of above sale of the vehicle to one Vijayan is also mentioned in the Ext.B3, the order in the OPNo.40/2011on the file of District Judge, Kasaragod.
It is pertinent to note that the complainant had not stated in the Ext.B2, the petition filed by him as OPNo.40/2011, before the District Judges Court, that the opposite party had seized the vehicle and sold in public auction. There is no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the vehicle was seized by the opposite party. So, it cannot be said that the opposite party has any liability or moral responsibility to approach the RTO to stop action against the complainant. The complainant has no case that he is not the RC owner of the vehicle. There is no evidence to show that the complainant had taken any steps to get the RC of the vehicle transferred to the name of any other person. Unless and until there is reliable evidence to show that the ownership and the possession of the vehicle has been legally transferred, the RC owner is liable to pay the road tax. Also the purchaser is not made party in this case.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the complainant failed to prove any unfair trade practice or service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Memo notice dated 17/12/2018
A2: Copy of Lawyers notice dated 22/02/2019
A3: Postal acknowledgment card
A4: Demand notice
B1: Copy of agreement
B2: Certified copy of petition
B3: Certified copy of the order
Witness cross examined
PW1: Shamsudheen.T.P
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
