DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 29^th day of October, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.32/2009

Suneer,

S/o.Abdul Rahiman,

1/452, Thavalathil Veedu,

Mannur Amsom & Desom,

Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad District. - Complainant

(By Adv.Shaik Abdulla)

Vs

1. The Manager,

HDFC Bank (Formerly Centurion Bank of Punjab),

Suharsha Towers,

Ground Floor, Shoranur Road,

Thrissur.

2. The Regional Transport Officer,

Office of the Regional Transport Office,

Civil Station, Palakkad.

(By R.Anand, Addl. Govt Pleader II)

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Complainant is the R.C owner of 2005 Model Royal Enfield 346CC Bullet Motor cycle bearing chassis No.5B 666746C, Registration No.KL9 R3253 and engine No.666746C and he has availed a vehicle finance from the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has given vehicle finance to the vehicle by scrutinizing and accepting the original RC and all other relevant documents. The arrangement of finance by way of Hire Purchase Agreement with 1^st opposite party is endorsed in the original RC book by the Registering Authority. After availing loan, complainant remitted the EMIs without fail and entire loan amount was paid by the complainant. Therefore the complainant is entitled to get back all the documents along with No Objection Certificate from the opposite parties. But the opposite parties has not issued the same. Opposite parties told the complainant that since the loan was sanctioned in the name of the brother of the complainant named Abdul Saleem, NOC, original RC and other documents would be handed over to him alone. The complainant has given clear instruction to the opposite parties to prepare all the documents in his name. Opposite parties has not

done it deliberately. When the mistake was noticed by the complainant, it was intimated to the opposite parties at once. Even then opposite party did not care to accept and rectify the mistake done by him. The EMI was closed on 29.12.06. Thereafter the complainant demanded the original documents to the 1^st opposite party on several occasions personally and by telephone also. On 01.09.08, the complainant sent a lawyer notice to the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party had accepted the lawyer notice on 03.09.08. But they neither replied nor returned the documents. The 1^st opposite party has no right to keep the original documents of the complainant. Complainant is entitled to get exemplary damages from the 1^st opposite party for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice done to the complainant. 2^nd opposite party is impleaded as a necessary party to avoid the technical plea of non joinder of necessary parties. No specific relief is sought from the 2^nd opposite party. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for an order directing the 1^st opposite party a) to return all the original documents such as Registration Certificate and Insurance Certificate and b) to issue NOC and termination letter to the complainant and to award damages of Rs.1 lakh for the deficiency in service and to pay all the cost and expenses.

Both opposite parties were set ex-parte. Thereafter 2^nd opposite party filed application to set aside ex-parte. Application allowed and ex-parte order was set aside. But 2^nd opposite party has not filed version or affidavit.

Complainant filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 marked on the side of complainant. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are;

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2:

We perused relevant documents on record. According to Ext.A1, page No.5 of the Registration Certificate it is mentioned that the motor vehicle described is subject to a hire purchase agreement with Centurian Bank. Complainant is the RC owner of 2005 model Royal Enfield 346CC Bullet motor cycle bearing chassis No.5B 666746C and has availed a vehicle finance from the 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party has not filed version or affidavit. The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the entire loan

amount was paid. But the same was not disputed. According to the complainant, the 1^st opposite party stated that the loan was sanctioned in his brother's name Abdul Saleem and the No Objection Certificate and the original RC and other document would be handed over to him. Brother of the complainant is not a party to the complaint. Complainant has not produced any document to show in whose name loan has been sanctioned.

In view of the above discussions we hold the view that the complainant miserably failed to prove a case in has favour. Hence the complaint dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th day of October, 2009.

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Copy of Certificate of Registration

Ext.A2 – Copy of Lawyer notice sent by complainant to 1^st opposite party, acknowledgement

card etc.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Costs (Not allowed)