CC Filed on 12.10.2010
Disposed on 06.04.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 06th day of April 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 211/2010
Between:
Sri. N. Mohan, S/o. K. Narayana Gowda, Aged about 44 years, R/o ItharasanahalliVillage, Nayanahalli Post, Kolar Taluk. (By Advocate Sri. M.P. Narayana Swamy ) | ….Complainant |
V/S 1. The Proprietor/Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., M.B. Road, Kolar. 2. The Manager, Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., Office No. 221, Royapettah High Road, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. (By Advocate Sri. C.M. Niranjana Swamy) | ….Opposite Parties |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to return the original R.C. relating to the two wheeler bearing Registration No. KA-07-L-6127 and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- with costs, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant purchased a two wheeler-mobike- TVS Victor from Cauvery Motors Limited, Kolar on 02.11.2006 taking finance from the OP.1 which is the Branch Office situated at Kolar, the Head Office (OP.2) of which is situated at Chennai.
The loan was repayable with certain terms and conditions as agreed in loan agreement dated 17.10.2006. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount with interest as agreed. The complaint implies that the complainant had handed over the original R.C. book to OP.1 at the time of loan transaction as demanded by the financer after getting an entry in the R.C. regarding the hire purchase/hypothecation of the vehicle in favour of financer. It is alleged that after discharge of the loan and interest the complainant requested for issue of “no objection certificate” and thereafter the OPs issued no objection letter dated 30.06.2010 addressed to R.T.O Kolar where the vehicle was registered along with Form 35 for cancellation of the finance endorsement in the R.C. book. It is alleged by complainant that inspite of several requests and several visits to the office of OP.1 it failed to handover the original R.C. relating to the said motor vehicle to complainant. Therefore the complainant filed the present complaint.
3. The OPs appeared and contested the proceedings. OP.1 filed the version. It is contended on behalf of OP.1 that the original R.C. book or any other document relating to the said vehicle were not received by it at the time of loan or any other time. Therefore it contended that there is no question of returning the original R.C. to complainant and requested to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both parties filed affidavits in support of their contentions. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant has proved that OP.1
had received the original R.C. at the time of
financing the vehicle?
Point No.2: If so, to what order?
6. After considering the pleadings and the evidence and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: OP.1 contended that it would give written acknowledgement if at all the original R.C. book of the vehicle was retained by it for any reason. Therefore it is contended that in the absence of such written acknowledgement for having retained the original R.C. book the oral version of complainant cannot be believed. On the other hand it is contended on behalf of complainant that it is the usual practice of the private financers to retain original R.C. book and also the blank Form 29, 30 signed by R.C. holder and that the financer does not issue any acknowledgement for retaining such documents. It is also contended on behalf of complainant that when once the loan is cleared the financer is not worried to search for tracing the original R.C. book and it would simply deny the receipt of very R.C. book. After considering the rival contentions we accept the contention of complainant for the following reasons.
If the complainant had not at all handed over the R.C. book to OP.1, he would not have made several requests for return of original R.C. book and he would not have filed the present complaint. The facts alleged by complainant must be within his knowledge. We found that in many cases the private financers retain the original R.C. and fail to trace it and return to the R.C. owner after the clearance of the loan. Retaining the original R.C. and blank Form No. 29 & 30 is the usual practice of private financers. The affidavit of M.N. Sanjeev Kumar the Manager and GPA Holder of OP.1 does not disclose whether he had personal knowledge regarding the facts of the case. Though he stated that no objection letter dated 30.06.2010 is issued by him, the signature found on the affidavit and the signature found on the no objection letter show that the said letter was signed by some other person other than this witness. Therefore we hold that M.N. Sanjeev Kumar has no personal knowledge of the facts of the case. Hence no importance can be given to the statement made by him in his affidavit that the original R.C. was not received or retained by OP.1. Therefore we hold point No.1 in affirmative.
Point No.2: It is found that OP1 had received the original R.C. book at the time of financing the complainant for purchase of vehicle. It is found that the original R.C. is not returned to complainant for effecting the cancellation of finance entry in the R.C. book. If the original R.C. book is not at all traced the complainant has to obtain the duplicate R.C. book from R.T.O Kolar. He has to spend the required amount for obtaining the duplicate R.C. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, we think a sum of Rs.5,000/- may be awarded as compensation to complainant for not returning the original R.C. Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall trace and return the original R.C. book relating to vehicle bearing No. KA-07-L-6127 to complainant within one month from the date of this order. In default OPs shall pay Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to complainant towards compensation.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 06th day of April 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
