By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-
 

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint filed against the Opposite Parties for not canceling higher purchase endorsement in Registration Certificate even after the payment of the entire loan amount.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows :- The Complainant is a purchaser of Piaggio Ape Passenger Autorikshaw No. KL 12D 7263 availing a loan from the 2^nd Opposite Party of Rs.50,000/- and the Complainant himself remitted Rs. 1,02,290/- for the purchase of the vehicle. The Complainant remitted Rs.51,500/- on 08.06.2009 and in effect of that the 2^nd Opposite Party issued no objection certificate and upon which the higher purchase endorsement was canceled by the 3^rd Opposite Party with effect from 08.06.2009. The Complainant exchanged the Autorikshaw No. KL 12D 7263 with Goods Autorikshaw No. KL 12D 4218. Subsequently the Complainant applied for clearance for the transfer of ownership of the Complainant's Autorikshaw in the name of Kuriakose who was the owner of Autorikshaw KL 10D 4218. When the application was given for clearance on the ground of no objection certificate issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant was informed of the objection of the 2^nd Opposite Party in canceling the higher purchase endorsement. The Complainant was not informed of nothing as such directly by the 2^nd Opposite Party. The no objection certificate issued by the 2^nd Opposite Party was only upon closing the liability of the Complainant. The Complainant is in a difficult situation. The permit of the vehicle was canceled. The new permit was not taken resulted by the deficit service of the Opposite Party. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle KL 12D 7263 on failure on the part of the Opposite Party to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the Autorikshaw No. KL 12D 7263. The Complainant is also to be compensated with Rs.25,000/- for mental strain and agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-

3. The 1^st Opposite Party is declared as exparte in this case. The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the 2^nd Opposite Party is as follows:- The 2^nd Opposite Party entered into hire purchase endorsement with the Complainant in the finance of the vehicle KL 12D 7263. The terms and conditions in the hire purchase agreement is binding on the Complainant. The complaint filed deviating the terms and conditions is unsustainable. In case of any dispute and deferences between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party it is to be adjudicated only in Chennai for which the jurisdiction is limited. The claim of the Complainant that the Complainant remitted Rs.51,500/- on 08.06.2009 towards the entire loan amount is absolutely false. The instalment agreed to be remitted by the Complainant as chartered was not remitted. There is gross failure on the part of the Complainant in the remittance of the loan amount. The Complainant issued legal notice on 20.08.2009 and 21.11.2009 and in respect of that the Complainant undertook the repayment of loan amount within the 3 months wide the letter dated 02.12.2009. Regarding the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement the 2^nd Opposite Party could know it only when the letter from 3^rd Opposite Party was received for confirmation of the no objection certificate said to be sent. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not so far issued no objection certificate. Since the hire purchase sum still in due from the Complainant, the no objection certificate said to be issued to the 3^rd Opposite Party and cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in pursuance of the same are all nothing but fraudulent play of the Complainant. The 2^nd opposite Party is trying to launch a criminal case against the Complainant for this foul play. The agreement executed by the Complainant for the hire purchase terms and conditions details the right and liability of the Complainant and Opposite Party. The Complainant has no right to sale or assign any charge or under let or exchange the vehicle. The right rested upon the Complainant is only as a hirer of the vehicle. In case of any act on the part of the Complainant which leads to the violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement. The 2^nd Opposite Party is having right to repossess the vehicle terminating the hire purchase deal.

1. The Complainant is to be directed to pay Rs.64,500/- the agreement amount to the Opposite Party.

2. Surrendering the vehicle to the Complaint.

3. Direction may be given to the concern police officials to register a case of cheating and forgery against the complainant and also prayed pass ordered which deem fit and proper in the interest of law and justice.

4. The 3^rd Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The application for cancellation of hire purchase endorsement was received in form No.35 signed by the Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party. The termination of hire purchase agreement entered into computer on 16.08.2009. On 16.07.2009 an objection was received from 2^nd Opposite Party not entertain in changes in record without any concept. The clearance certificate for the transfer of the vehicle was not issued on the ground of no objection registered by the 2^nd Opposite Party. A letter for clarification sent to the financier on 16.12.2009 was not replied. Hence the termination of hire purchase was canceled on 04.01.2010 and it is still in pending for the clarification of the finance/

5. Points in consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complaint is maintainable in respect of territorial jurisdiction ?

2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties in the vehicle finance?

3. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The contention of the Opposite Party is that the complaint is not maintainable since the Complainant herself entered into the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement that the adjudication of the dispute is limited to Chennai. The 1^st Opposite Party acted as an agent of the 2^nd Opposite Party who carries out business within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. It is the settled position that as entered into an agreement for hire purchase all the terms and conditions which coercive in nature are not applicable for the interest of natural justice. The plea of the Opposite Parties that the complaint is lacking the territorial jurisdiction is found unsustainable.

7. Points No.2 and 3:- The evidence in this case consists proof affidavit of Complainant and the documents Ext.A1 to A3. The 2^nd Opposite Party has not rendered any oral testimony in this case. The Complainant is examined as PW1. According to the Complainant he availed finance from the 2^nd Opposite Party for the purchase of the vehicle. The entire transaction were dealt by the 1^st Opposite Party who is an exparte in this case. Ext.A3 is the application to the registering authority in Form 35 for the termination of the agreement entered into between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party. The registering authority on receiving the application terminated the hire purchase endorsement with effect from 08.06.2009. It is also seen that the cancellation of the hire purchase endorsement subsequently canceled upon the information of the 2^nd Opposite Party, the financier. The contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party is that the termination of the hire purchase agreement was not within the knowledge and awareness of the 2^nd Opposite Party. No such information was given by the financier for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate. It is a product of fraudulent activity by the Complainant. How ever the 2^nd Opposite Party has not produced any documents to show that if the hire purchase endorsement was effected by the fraudulent act of the Complainant no criminal case is found to be charged against the Complainant in this case. According to the Complainant due amount of the Complainant was remitted in the office of the 1^st Opposite Party who acted as an agent of the financier. The documents such as the signed and blank stamp paper and cheque leaves signed by the Complainant were given back. Towards the remittance of the loan amount no receipt was given by the 1^st Opposite Party. It is also the contention of the Complainant that at the time of issuance of the loan, the Complainant had to sign in the blank and white papers. In the absence of any adverse inferences that the request of the financier supposed to be sent in form 35 for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement is to be considered as a genuine one sent by the financier. The 1^st Opposite party who acted as an agent of the financier played vital role in the transaction. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties have not rendered substantial evidence to establish their case. In such circumstances we are inclined to consider that the Complainant remitted the liable amount towards the closing of the loan and in pursuance of that the financier had issued the application in form No. 35 to the registering authority. The non cancellation of hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate of vehicle No.KL 12D 7263 is a deficiency in service and the points are found accordingly. The 3^rd Opposite Party is only the registering authority who terminated the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement on receiving the objection.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties are directed to issue the Complainant the no objection certificate necessary for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. In case of any failure on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties to send the request in form No.35 for the cancellation of hire purchase endorsement. The 3^rd Opposite Party is directed to cancel the hire purchase endorsement in the Registration Certificate of the vehicle No.KL12D 7263. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay jointly and severally the cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Complainant. This is to be complied by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receiving this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th April 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Muhaseena P.V. Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Certificate of Registration.

A2. Copy of No Objection Certificate. dt:08.06.2009.

A3 (2 Nos.) Copy of Notice of Termination of an agreement

of Hire- Purchase/ Lease/ Hypothecation. dt:08.06.2009.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

Nil.