DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 5th day of August 2010 .

Present : Smt. Seena.H, President

: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.18/2010

Krishnan.

S/o. Vasu

Thazhathepurackal House

Mannampatta (P.O)

Palakkad - Complainant

(Adv.K.R. Kochunarayanan)

Vs

1. The Proprietor

Gayathri Motors

Authorised Signatory

Viswam Arcade

N H 47, Pirivusala

Chandra Nagar

Palakkad

(Adv. K.A. Kailas)

2. The Manager

IndusIand Bank

Chandra Nagar

Palakkad - Opposite parties

(Adv. K. Dhananjayan)

O R D E R

By Smt. Seena.H, President

1. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle in the year 2005 from the 1^st opposite party by arranging finance from the 2^nd opposite party. The loan was availed from the 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party. Entire loan amount was closed on 16/08/2008. The grievance of the complainant is that even after closure of the loan account, 2^nd opposite party failed to issue No Objection Certificate and return original Registration Certificate Book. Complainant directly as well as through lawyer notice demanded back the original Registration Certificate. But 2^nd opposite party failed to return it. Hence the complaint. Complainant claims Rs.14,000/- with interest as compensation.

2. Both opposite parties filed separate version. 1^st opposite party contented that they does not arrange any financial assistance to any purchasers of vehicle and there is no

   - 2 -

evidence to prove that 1^st opposite party has arranged the finance. 2^nd opposite party has admitted there was a Hire purchase agreement between 2^nd opposite party and the complainant. It is also admitted that entire loan amount was closed. 2^nd opposite party contented that they do not insist the customer to deposit the original Registration Certificate with them. If at all any document has been accepted by the opposite party, certainly a receipt would have been issued. Since there is no such receipt, Registration Certificate book is in the custody of the complainant himself. Further submits that the compensation claimed is exaggerated.

2. Complainant and opposite parties has led evidence in the form of affidavit. Exhibit A1 to A5 and Exhibit B1 marked on the side of the complainant and opposite parties respectively.

3. Issues that arise for our consideration are.

   a. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

   b. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?

Issue 1

Heard both parties and perused relevant documents on record.

Facts of the case are more or less admitted. Hire purchase agreement between the complainant and 2^nd opposite party is admitted. Payment of the entire loan and closure of the loan is also admitted.

The specific contention raised by the 2^nd opposite party is that if at all any vehicular documents is accepted by the opposite party, they would have issued a receipt for that. Since receipt is not there, Registration Certificate would have lost from the custody of the complainant himself. Further submits that they have no such practice of retaining original Registration Certificate.

Exhibit A3 which is the cover note specifically contains what are the documents handed over to the complainant. The column for Form No.35 and Duplicate Key is seen to be specifically marked indicating it is handed over to the complainant. The column for Registration Certificate (original) and Registration Certificate (xerox copy) is left blank.That itself shows the said document has not been handed over to the complainant. It is also clearly revealed from Exhibit A3 that what are the usual documents to be handed

- 3 -

over to 2^nd opposite party. The stand of 2^nd opposite party that it is not the usual practice to retain Registration Certificate is of no substance. Further 2^nd opposite party has not produced any documentary evidence. 2^nd opposite party himself has submitted that they have the habit of issuing receipt for the documents entrusted with them. So definitely the corresponding documents will be with 2^nd opposite party. Production of the acknowledgment of the entrustment of any of the document or duplicate key certainly would have thrown light to the contention that the original Registration Certificate was not handed over to them. 2^nd opposite party being in the party array and contesting the case ought to have produced the same. Complainant has alleged that loan facilities was availed from 2^nd opposite party through 1^st opposite party. No evidence produced by the complainant showing any tie up between 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

In view of the discussions we are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service.

Issue No.2

Complainant has directly and through lawyer notice demanded for return of original Registration Certificate. Complainant submits that he is mason by profession and is residing 45 kilometers away from 2^nd opposite party office. Since deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party is established, complainant is entitled to reasonable amount as compensation. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.10,000/- would meet the ends of justice. Since no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party is proved, 1^st opposite party is exonerated from liability.

In the result complaint allowed and we order the following.

1. 2^nd opposite party shall hand over the original Registration Certificate to the complainant.

2. 2^nd opposite party shall pay complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

3. If the original Registration Certificate is not handed over within the stipulated time, an additional amount of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid to the complainant. Order to be

- 4 -

complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 5th day of August , 2010

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Date of filing: 19/02/2010

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Postal receipts and copy of lawyer notice fated 12/01/2009

2. Ext. A2 – Letter dated 29/08/2008 of Induslnd Bank

3. Ext. A3 – Cover Note No.234 of Induslnd Bank

4. Ext. A4 - Key and Form 35

5. Ext. A5 – Receipt dated 16/11/05 of Gayathry Motors

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1. Ext. B1 – Acknowledgment card, Postal receipt & Copy of lawyer notice dated 27/01/2009

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Costs - Allowed.

Rs.1,000/-