By Smt. C. S. Sulekha Beevi, President

This complaint coming up for hearing on the question of maintainability this Forum doth order as under:

Facts:-

1. The complainant had availed a vehicle finance from B. Padmachand Kothari, No.13, Erappalam Street, Sowdapet, Madras upon his vehicle KL/10-C 2937 Mini-lorry. It is stated that he defaulted about 6 installments and later paid the entire loan before the last due date. The financier claimed Rs.18,600/- as additional hire charges and refused to issue the hire purchase termination letter. Complainant then approached this Forum and filed O.P. 48/2003 against the financier praying to issue the hire purchase termination letter and for ancillary reliefs. The complaint was allowed on 16.02.2008 in favor of complainant and the financier was ordered to issue the hire purchase termination letter within three weeks. It was also ordered that on failure of the financier to issue the No Objection Certificate the copy of the order would be communicated to the concerned Regional Transport Officer who on receiving the copy of order shall cancel the endorsement of hypothecation in Registration Certificate.

2. It is submitted by the complainant that he filed E.A.53/2008 for execution of the above order. Meanwhile he contacted the Regional Transport Officer of Perinthalmana. The Officer orally assured the complainant that the hypothection endorsement would be canceled as per the order of the Forum. Accordingly, the counsel Sri. K. Hamza appearing on behalf of the complainant reported full satisfaction/compliance of the order and the E.A.53/2008 was closed recording full satisfaction. It's further submitted that thereafter the complainant approached the Regional Transport Officer, Perinthalmanna several times to get the hypothecation canceled as assured. The Officer (opposite party herein) refused to cancel the hypothecation. Complainant was put to much hardships and he then again filed another execution application as E.A.14/2010 before this Forum to have the order executed. E.A.14/2010 was dismissed by the Forum holding that the order in O.P. 48/2003 has already been executed and full satisfaction recorded. This order passed in E.A.14/2010 has become final as the complainant did not file any revision.

3. Complainant states that as early as 2003 he has been making efforts to get the hypothecation canceled. He presently alleges that the act of opposite party (Regional Transport Officer) in not canceling the hypothecation as per the order of the Forum is deficiency. Hence this complaint seeking to direct the Regional Transport Officer to cancel the endorsement as per the order of this Forum in O.P.48/2003 and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.2000/- for not complying the order in O.P. 48/2003. The counsel for complainant was heard on the question of maintainability.

4. It is brought to light from the facts presented by this complaint that the order passed in O.P.48/2003 is complied and full satisfaction recorded as per records of this Forum. It is now the case of the complainant that the order was not actually complied and that this is deficiency on the part of Regional Transport Officer. There can be no consumer complaint for non compliance of the order of the Forum. Section 27 provides for penalties in case of non compliance. Section 25 provides for enforcement of order of the Forum. These provisions deal with situations of non compliance. A new complaint will not lie for non compliance. Further there is no consumer relationship between opposite party and the complainant as the complainant has not hired any service from opposite party herein (Regional Transport Officer). Complainant has not paid any charges to the opposite party. Complying the order of the Forum can in no way be considered as hiring of service. The complainant is therefore not a consumer.

5. Again, the dispute raised regarding the issuance of cancellation of hypothecation in regard to the vehicle KL/10-C 2937 has already been adjudicated and order passed on merits. In our view the dispute when has ended by full satisfaction cannot be sought to be raised further. The complainant seeks to reagitate the matter in which full satisfaction of relief was recorded. This is not permissible.

6. Upon the above grounds we hold that the complaint is not maintainable. In the result we dismiss the complaint in limine. No costs.

Dated this 20th day of June, 2011.

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER