Kerala

Wayanad

CC/10/191

M.P.Bajith,Meethalay Parayil House,Ponnamkolly,Nenmeni Post,Sulthan Bathery. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Ltd,No.256/D2,Siddappa Building,1st Floor,Comercial Road,Ooty, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Mar 2011

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/10/191
 
1. M.P.Bajith,Meethalay Parayil House,Ponnamkolly,Nenmeni Post,Sulthan Bathery.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Ltd,No.256/D2,Siddappa Building,1st Floor,Comercial Road,Ooty,Nilgiriese.
2. The Manager,Shriram Transport Finance Ltd,52,SVM Complex,CK Enclave,1st Floor,Karamadi Road,Mettupalayam,Tamilnadu.
Mettupalayam.
THamilnadu
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

 

By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member.


 

The gist of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant was the registered owner of Mahindra Jeep KL 11 B 6346 and he availed a loan from the Opposite Party by pledging the vehicle on 13.11.2006. The loan agreement was endorsed in the R.C at the Regional Transport Office, Wayanad. Subsequently on 04.10.2007 Complainant sold the vehicle to Mr. Chandran, S/o Chathan, Kuttikattil House, Nenmeni with the consent of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party also sanctioned a loan to Mr. Chandran. Subsequently, the vehicle was seized by the Opposite Party and is in the custody of Opposite Party. On 14.11.2009 the Complainant paid the entire loan amount and the Opposite Party promised to return 2 cheque leafs to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also assured to transfer the R.C in the name of Chandran and obtained all the signed documents from the Complainant for transferring the R.C.


 

2. Meanwhile the Complainant received a revenue recovery notice from the Village Officer, Nenmeni to recover a sum of Rs.5,288/- towards vehicle tax. On enquiry, it was revealed that the R.C was not transferred to Mr. Chandran by the Opposite Party. Then the Complainant himself has paid the tax Rs.5,785/-.


 

3. There is deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Party in not transferring the R.C in the name of Mr. Chandran. It caused irreparable loss and hardship to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to return back 2 cheque leaves and are signed blank stamp paper to the Complainant. He also prays for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-.


 

4. The Opposite Party filed version and admitted the loan agreement between them and the Complainant. The Complainant paid the entire loan and NOC was given to him. It is the Complainant himself who sold the vehicle to Mr. Chandran and it is only his duty to clear the taxes and transfer the R.C to the buyer. The Opposite Party is not at all connected with these matters. The Opposite Party also admit that they sanctioned a loan to Mr.Chandran also. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is the duty of the Complainant to get the loan endorsement in the R.C canceled and transfer it to the name of Mr.Chandran. Hence they pray for an order dismissing the complaint.

5. The Complainant was examined as PW1, documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A4 on the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. No documents were marked on the side of the Complainant.


 

6. The matters to be decided are:-

  1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties?

  2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?


 

7. Point No.1:- From the Complaint itself it is seen that the vehicle is sold before closing the loan and cancelling the loan endorsement in the R.C. The R.C cannot be transferred to another person without cancelling the loan endorsement. It is the duty of the R.C owner to get the loan endorsement cancelled and transfer the R.C to the person who purchased the vehicle. Sanctioning of loan by the Opposite Parties to Mr. Chandran without transferring the R.C in his name cannot be treated as deficiency in service towards the Complainant. The Complainant has not proved that Opposite Party had obtained signed cheque leaves and blank stamp papers and had not returned them on payment of the loan. Hence point No.1 is held against the Complainant.


 

8. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency in service found on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.


 

Hence the complaint is dismissed.


 


 

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th March 2011.


 

Date of filing:05.10.2010


 

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

MEMBER : Sd/-


 

A P P E N D I X


 

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Bajith Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Manimaran. Branch Manager, Shree Ram Finance Company.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Copy of Letter. dt:04.11.2008.

A2. Letter. dt:14.11.2009.

A3. Demand Notice.

A4. Receipt. dt:04.08.2010.

Exhibit for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.