PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT 

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  According to the complainant, he is the owner of Taxi No.MH-03-AT-0914 and holder of the permit issued by the R.T.O.  He is plying the taxi.  He was in need of money therefore he had requested the opponent to sanction the loan and accordingly the opponent sanctioned and disbursed the loan amount of Rs.1,82,000/- to the complainant in the month of September-2009. EMI was fixed at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month.  The opponent retained R.C.Book and Permit of the complainant by way of security of the loan amount.  Agreement was also executed.  The complainant repaid the loan amount of Rs.2,16,000/- but still the opponent is threatening the complainant to seize his taxi by force.  The complainant issued notice to the opponent and also lodged police complaint at Bhoiwada Police Station on 18^th January, 2013.  As the opponent is threatening the complainant, he has filed this complaint for return of R.C.Book and Permit to the complainant.  He has also prayed for amount of Rs.1 Lakh towards the loss and Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation. He has prayed to restrain the opponent from claiming loan amount.

2)                The opponent appeared and filed written statement.  It is submitted that the opponent is the taxi owner and not the complainant.  The taxi was given to the complainant on executing hire purchase agreement for the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs. The complainant agreed to pay hire charges of Rs.8,000/- per month.  The complainant repaid amount of Rs.2,16,000/-. As the opponent is the owner, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3)                After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 to 3 :-  According to the complainant, he is the taxi owner.  He took loan from the opponent and the opponent got agreement executed.  The opponent himself has produced original R.C.Book for perusal and produced the copy of it on record.  On going through it, it is clear that the complainant is the owner of Tax No. MH-03-AT-914.  R.C.Book falsifies the contention of the opponent that the opponent is owner. On going through the R.C.Book, charge is kept by executing hypothecation agreement.  According to the opponent, he is the owner. The opponent has produced one receipt dated 10^th August, 2009 along with the written statement showing the payment of Rs.2 Lakh to the complainant. If, it is accepted then the question arise why in the R.C.Book name of the complainant is recorded as taxi owner.  Even the Permit is also in the name of the complainant. These documents support the contention of the complainant that he took loan from the opponent and the opponent got one agreement executed in his favour.  As per law, name of the taxi owner must be recorded in the R.T.O. record.  Considering the R.C.Book and Permit on record, the contention of the opponent that he is the owner of the taxi cannot be accepted.  Thus, the documents on record show that the complainant is the taxi owner. According to the complainant, he took loan from the opponent and repaid the amount of Rs.2,16,000/-. The repayment of amount of Rs.2,16,000/- is accepted by the opponent. Merely because H.P.A. is recorded in R.C.Book, the opponent can not claim as the owner of the Taxi. As per Rule, R.C.Book must be in the vehicle. The complainant has produced the Permit on record showing that he is the Permit Holder of Taxi No.MH-03-AT-0914. The complainant is plying the taxi.  Surprisingly, the opponent has produced original R.C.Book from its custody for perusal and copy is produced on record.  When the opponent is not the owner and the complainant is plying the taxi along with Permit, the opponent has no right to retain original R.C.Book with it.  Therefore, it is necessary to direct the opponent to hand over the original R.C.Book to the complainant.

5)                The learned advocate for the opponent has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts.  But, the facts before us are totally different.  Hence, those judgments are not applicable to the present complaint.

6)                It appears that there is dispute in between the parties about the amount.  The opponent can take steps as per law, but it can not retain the original R.C.Book and obstruct the complainant from plying the taxi as per Rule.  The complainant has claimed loss of business Rs.1 Lakh.  But, there is no evidence on record showing the loss to him.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs for mental harassment.  There is also no evidence to that effect.  Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim loss and compensation.  However, the opponent has wrongly retained R.C.Book with it.  Therefore, the opponent is liable to pay cost of this proceeding Rs.3,000/- to the complainant.   Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent is directed to hand over original R.C.Book to the complainant.
3. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.3,000/-(Rs.Three Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding. 
4. The above order shall be complied within a period of one month from today.
5. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Delivered on 13^th November, 2014