By G. Yadunadhan, President:

            The case of the complainant is that complainant had entered into a hire purchase agreement with 1^st respondent through 2^nd respondent pertaining to the purchase of Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle having registration No. KL.11-P/3371, Engine No. 02118M05827, chasis No.02A20C11614. At the time of execution of the hire purchase agreement with the 1^st respondent pertaining to the above said vehicle, the original R.C.book of the said vehicle was kept by the 2^nd respondent on behalf of the 1^st respondent.  It is the duty of the both respondents to return the original R.C.book pertaining to the above said vehicle as and when the complainant completed the instalment amounts as fixed in the hire purchase agreement.  Complainant settled the hire purchase agreement with the 1^st respondent on 29.1.2005.  The complainant did not make any default in the payment.  Respondents failed to return the original R.C.book of the above said vehicle while giving No Objection Certificate to the complainant.  Complainant approached the 2^nd respondent on several times and demanded to return the original R.C.  Complainant sent lawyer notice, but so far opposite party has not replied.  Hence complainant is seeking relief against the opposite parties directing the both opposite parties to return the original R.C. and also to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with the cost of proceedings.

            Opposite parties entered in appearance and filed version stating that the rights and liabilities of the parties  intense are governed by a hire purchase agreement  on 5.4.2002.  The clause 10 of the hire purchase agreement provides settlement of disputes through arbitration.  The complainant willingly and voluntarily admitted and accepted the terms of the said agreement with open eyes and signed the same in token of the acceptance.  Existence of such arbitration clause debars the complainant from filing the above complaint.  The complainant has willfully suppressed the above facts.   Even if legal proceedings are necessitated the same can only be initiated at Court in Chennai.  In view of the above said hire purchase, the above complaint is not maintainable and also complainant is not a consumer as contemplated under Consumer Protection Act.  There is no negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Further opposite parties deny all the allegations made by the complainant that the original R.C.book, tax token and insurance, which are maintained by the complainant directly from the dealer point.  Further allegation of the complainant is that he is entitled for a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- is baseless and hence denied.

            Points for consideration: (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?  (2) Whether any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?  If so, what is the relief and costs?

            Complainant has not adduced any oral evidence.  Exts. A1 to A7 were marked on complainant’s side.  No oral evidence adduced or documents marked on opposite parties’ side.

            Opposite parties sought time for adducing evidence during the last 8 consecutive  postings and finally on 14.1.2009.   Forum specifically posted for opposite parties’ evidence on 30.1.2009,  but opposite parties have not turned up.  Hence opposite parties are called absent and set exparte.

            Ext. A1 document clearly shows that complainant availed service from the opposite parties.  So 1^st point is answered accordingly.  Hence, complainant is a consumer contemplated under Consumer Protection Act.   According to the complainant, original R.C. was handed over to the 2^nd opposite party.  No contra evidence were adduced by the opposite parties to deny the allegations made by the complainant and also after remitting the entire dues it is the duty of the opposite parties to hand over all the documents including R.C. to the complainant.  Nothing was brought out by the opposite parties that all the documents pertaining to the vehicle are handed over to the complainant.  Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

            In the result petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to hand over the original R.C.book and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- along with a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.  The opposite parties are directed to comply the order with 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order.

            Pronounced in open Court this the 20^th day of March 2009.

                                                Sd/-President                                  Sd/-Member

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1        Copy of HP Cancellation letter No.103728 dated 29.1.2005 along with agreement.

A2        Copy of Lawyer notice dated 8.6.2005.

A3        Postal registered receipt – 2 Nos.

A4        Postal acknowledgement card.

A5        Postal acknowledgement card.

A6            Contract No.EDDO 17484.

A7            Receipt for Rs.905/-, Rs.30365/- Rs.2298/- Bill for Rs.42305/-, Invoice for Rs.42305/-

            Receipt for Rs.1875/-.

Documents exhibited for s the opposite parties:

Nil.

-/True copy/-

Sd/-President

(Forwarded/By Order)

Senior Superintendent.