ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint seeking compensation and a direction to the opp.parties to hand over the RC book of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL 2S 2749. to the complainant The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant has purchased a Hero Honda Make Splendor two wheeler now bearing Reg.No.KL-2S 2749, Frame No. O4X 16C 05586, Engine No. O4C 15M 19868 on 21.06.2004 from the 2nd opp.party with the financial assistance of the first opp.party erstwhile M/s. Centurion Bank of Pujab Ltd., which now amalgamated with HDFC Bank Ltd. After the amalgamation the complainant’s account was duly transferred to the HDFC Bank and he remitted the remaining monthly installments to the HDFC Bank. The loan agreement executed by the complainant with the first opp.party he is liable to pay the availed with interest in 48 equal monthly instalments at the rate of Rs.1,015/- per month with effect from 10.5.2004 to 104.1008. At the time of purchasing the vehicle the employees of the 2nd opp.party obtained the signatures of the complainant in all necessary documents for registering the vehicle before the Kollam RTO and the first opp.party obtained signatures in the loan cum hypothecation agreement alone with the authorization to collect the Registration certificate. The entire loan amount due to the first opp.party was paid by the complainant without any failure and the last and final cheque was collected by them on 16.4.2008. Thereafter the complainant contacted the first opp.party for collecting his original Registration Certificate and No Objection Certificate along with other necessary documents to remove the hypothecation agreement endorsed in the registration certificate then the first opp.party informed that it will take two months time to verify any default or breach from the part of the complainant and that it will be sent to the complainant through registered post only. The first opp.party is liable to return the original RC Book of the vehicle bearing No.KL 02 S 2749, signed blank papers and other documents collected at the time of execution of the loan cum hypothecation agreement and also the necessary documents to be produced before the Registering Authority to remove the endorsement of hypothecation from the RC Book. The inordinate delay in returning the above said documents is causing unnecessary inconveniences to the complainant.. Hence the complaint. The 1st opp.party remained absent and hence ex-parte. The 2nd opp.party filed version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The purchase of the vehicle in question from the 2nd opp.party is fairly admitted. There is absolutely no allegation against the defect in vehicle or its deal. The complainant approached the 1st opp.party as per the advise of the 2nd opp.party The option and desire of the complainant to have a financier according to his suiting and the 2nd opp.party did not have any obligation with the 1st opp.party. The complainant demanded RC book with the opp.party is utter falsehood and no occasion was warranted to withheld the RC of the complainant by the 2nd opp.party being a dealer. It is purely a complaint between a financier and hirer for which the 2nd opp.party ought to have been left alone. The 2nd opp.party is unaware of the fact that whether the complainant would clear off the hire amounts and availed the option to purchase it from the financier. The cause of action alleged to have arose at the office of the 2nd opp.party is vehemently denied as the 2nd opp.party is only a dealer in selling the Hero Honda Motor Cycles and not at all engaged in promoting the business of any bankers or financiers. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for or otherside. Hence the 2nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is Examined. Ext. P1 toP5 series are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.parties POINTS: The 1st opp.party even though appeared before the Forum, did not file any version and remained absent. Hence 1st opp.party was set exparte. The 2nd opp.party filed their objection stating that they are unnecessary party in this proceeding and hence the complaint is bad for misjointer of party. The said contention of the 2nd opp.party cannot be accepted, because 2nd opp.party admits that they are the dealer and from their shop the complainant purchased the vehicle. Here the complainants seeks relief only from the 1st opp.party. Though the Exts. P1 to P5 series and through affidavit the complainant proved his case. Since the 1st opp.party is exparte we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced from the side of the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed, 1st opp.party is directed to return the original Registration Certificate of the vehicle of the complainant bearing Reg.No. KL. 2S 2749 along with no objection certificate for producing before the RTO., Kollam for cancellation of the endorsement of hypothecation. 1st opp.party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.. Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2010. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Sunilkumar List of documents for the complainant P1. – Service book P2. – RC particulars P3. – Notice P4. – Postal receipt P5 series – Acknowledgement cards | 
