KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.80/2010 JUDGMENT DATED 14.10.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SHRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER The Centurian Bank of Punjab Ltd. Now HDFC Bank Ltd. Calicut Reptd. by its Authorized Signatory & -- APPELLANT Power of Attorney Holder. (By Adv.Lekshmana Iyer Vs. 1. Unnikannan P.V Parambath Veedu, Pollappoil, Kodakkad.P.O, Kasaragod – 671 357. 2. Pioneer Motors, -- RESPONDENTS Kasaragod. (R2 by Adv.V.S.Bimal & Ors.) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR,MEMBER The CDRF, Kasaragod vide its order dated 1.6.09 in CC.254/08 had directed the second opposite party to return the original RC of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-14 F 1840 with key to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is also directed that in the event of failure to return the original RC and Key, the second opposite party shall be liable to pay additional compensation of Rs.5000/. It is against the said directions, that the present appeal is filed by the second opposite party calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below. 2. For a fair disposal of the appeal, the brief facts of the case are re-capitulated as here under. The complainant had purchased the Yamaha Libero Motorcycle from the first opposite party and the loan was arranged by them from the second opposite party and that on payment of the entire dues, the complainant had requested for return of the original RC and duplicate Key of the vehicle. It is the case of the complainant that though he had approached the opposite party at Kasaragod and Kozhikode, his request was not adhered to and alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed praying for directions to return the RC and duplicate Key of the vehicle with compensation and costs. 3. Resisting the complaint, the first opposite party filed version stating that they are only the dealers of the vehicle and they had nothing to do with the hypothecation and entrustment of the original RC, duplicate key, Tax token, Insurance certificate etc. and they are un-necessary parties to the proceedings. However, the second opposite party in their version contended that they had not received the RC and key of the said vehicle, either from the first opposite party or from the complainant. Though, the loan was admitted, the second opposite party totally denied the case of the complainant and it was submitted that the remedy left to the complainant was to approach the first opposite party for the original RC and key. It was also submitted that the second opposite party was an un-necessary party in the proceedings. 4. The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3. On the side of the opposite parties, the Asst. Manager (Legal) of the second opposite party was examined as DW1. It was based on the said evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order. 5. We heard the counsel for the appellant and second respondent. The first respondent who appeared in person was also heard. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/second opposite party has submitted before us that the case of the complainant is not true and that the appellant has not received the original RC and the key from the complainant or from the first opposite party. He has also submitted that it was on an erroneous interpretation of the evidence that the Forum below passed the impugned order and that the Forum below had lost sight the facts and circumstances of the case and there was no piece of evidence to show that the RC and key were handed over to the appellant/second opposite party by the first respondent/complainant. It is also submitted by him that there was no agreement or undertaking by the appellant to keep the RC and key with them and the Forum’s order to return the key and RC with compensation and costs is perse illegal and unsustainable. Advancing the contention that the order of the forum below is liable to be set aside, he argued for allowing the appeal with costs.. 7. On the other had, the complainant/first respondent who appeared in person submitted before us that he had entrusted the key and RC to the second opposite party/appellant along with the insurance certificate and other particulars for obtaining the loan. It is his case that though he had closed the loan, the second opposite party was not willing to return the key and the R.C. It is also submitted by him that he had approached the office of the second opposite party at Kasaragod and at Kozhikode for getting the RC and key and appellant had denied his request to return the original RC and key by which act he had suffered great mental agony and also loss for being unable to sell the vehicle after his use. 8. The counsel for the second respondent/first opposite party argued in support of the case of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, second respondent and also on hearing the first respondent, we find that the case of the complainant is that though he had closed the loan, the second opposite party who gave the loan was not ready to return the RC and duplicate key which were obtained from the complainant at the time of sanctioning the loan. The appellant would argue that they were not in the receipt of the original RC and key from the complainant or from the first opposite party/second respondent. On an appreciation of the entire facts and circumstances, we find that the appellant had advanced the loan and there is every possibility of having obtained the original RC, Insurance certificate, Tax token and the duplicate key of the vehicle from the complainant. The complainant had submitted before us that at the time depositing the above documents the opposite party did not give any receipt for the same and he was unaware of such a procedure when he was availing the loan. We find that the forum below had directed the second opposite party/appellant to return the original RC and the key to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. It is also found that the Forum below has directed the second opposite party to pay Rs.5000/- as additional compensation in the event of failure to return the original RC and key. It is also found that the second opposite party/appellant has taken the stand that they are not in receipt of the RC and the key and they are also not having the same in their custody and in such a situation we find that the first part of the order to return the key and RC will not be possible to be executed. However, the appellant is also directed to pay compensation of RS.10,000/-. But, we find that the compensation ordered is on a higher side and we reduce the same to Rs.3000/-. The Forum’s order to pay additional compensation in the event of failure to return the original RC and key cannot be said to be on the higher side. We confirm that part of the order and the order directing to pay cost of Rs.2000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part thereby the total compensation payable to the complainant will be Rs.8000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. The same shall be paid by the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT s/L | 
