By Sri. A.S. Subhagan, Member:-

            This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            2.  Facts of the case in brief:-  Complainant is the RC owner of Bajaj Autorickshaw with Registration No.KL-12-A-5637 which was hypothecated to the Opposite Party No.1 and had availed a loan on 11.10.2002.  As per the loan repayment chart issued by the Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had repaid the loan amount in full by 24 instalments on 11.11.2004.  subsequently, the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 seeking NOC for the purpose of cancellation of hypothecation in the RC.  But the Opposite Party No.1 has not issued the NOC till date.  Hence this complaint with prayers to

1. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to issue NOC to the Complainant for the purpose of cancellation of hypothecation in the RC,
2. Direct the Opposite Party No.2 to cancel the hypothecation in the RC if the Opposite Party No.1 denies issue of NOC
3. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental and monetary loss caused to the Complainant and
4. Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to pay Rs.25,000/- towards cost of this complaint to the Complainant etc.

3.  Summons were served to the Opposite Parties for appearance. But Opposite Party No.1 did not appear and file version and hence they were set ex-parte.  Opposite Party No.2 appeared and filed version, the contents of which are as follows:   The vehicle No.KL-12-A-5637 is a Three wheeler (passenger) registered in the name of Sri. K. S. Balakrishnan, S/o. Swamikutty, Kottilil House, Vythiri Post, Wayanad with effect from 28.08.1999 and is held under hypothecation agreement with VRP Finance Corporation, New 5, Old 31, General Muthayya Street, Ground Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai -600079 with effect from 11.10.2002.  As per Rule 61 (1) of CMV Rule 1989, an application  for making an entry of termination of agreement of hire purchase, lease hypothecation referred to in sub section (3) of Sec.51 of MV Act shall be made in Form 35 duly signed by the Registered Owner of the vehicle and financier, which shall be accompanied by the original Certificate of Registration, valid documents and the appropriate fee as specified in Rule 81.   In this case no application pertaining to cancellation/termination of hypothecation as per MV Act and Rules have been submitted in the prescribed form to the Opposite Party No.2 or any office of Motor Vehicles Department till date.  The Registering Authority is not aware of the party to the financial terms of the hypothecation agreement between the Registered Owner and the financier.  The financial aspects and its implications are to be dealt by the parties themselves.  The Registering Authority has no objection to cancel the Hypothecation entry in the RC book, if the application is submitted with prescribed fees as per Motor Vehicles Act and Rules.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the Complaint with cost of this Opposite Party.

4.  The Complainant filed chief affidavit, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked from his side and he was examined as PW1. Opposite Party No.2 filed chief affidavit but no documents were marked from their side.  Opposite Party No.2 was examined as OPW1 and the Complaint was finally heard on 07.12.2023.

5.  Considering the facts of the case, documents marked oral evidence adduced and the arguments in hearing, Commission raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, relief and Cost?

6.  Point No.1:-  The case of the Complainant is that though he had completely repaid the entire amount of loan to the Opposite Party No.1, they did not issue NOC for the purpose of cancellation of hypothecation agreement in the RC.  Hence this complaint with prayers.  Page No.10 of Ext.A1, which is the RC of the vehicle, reveals that the vehicle is hypothecated to the Opposite Party No.1.  Ext.A2 showing the loan amount, repayment and other particulars in respect of the vehicle hypothecated to the Opposite Party No.1 reveals that the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.39,750/- and the amount has been fully repaid.  Ext.A3 series are the receipts of repayment of the loan to the Opposite Party No.1.  It is crystal clear that as per Ext.A1, A2 and A3 the Complainant has performed his part of job and hence the Opposite Party No.1 is duty bound to issue NOC for cancellation of hypothecation in the RC, to the Complainant so as to produce it before the Opposite Party No.2.  In version and in oral evidence, the Opposite Party No.2 has stated that they have no objection for cancellation of the hypothecation in the RC of the Complainant, if all the legal formalities are fulfilled by the Complainant as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, filing an application in this regard.  The Opposite Party No.1 had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and was at liberty to contest their case.  But they did not appear and hence were set ex-parte.  The Opposite Party No.1 was duty bound to issue NOC for cancellation of Hypothecation as the Complainant had remitted the full amount of loan.  But they did not issue NOC.  This is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice from the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  So, Point No.1 is proved against Opposite Party No.1.

7.  Point No.2:-  As deficiency in service/unfair trade practice  is proved against Opposite Party No.1, they are liable to pay compensation and cost also to the Complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 is directed

1. To issue NOC in respect of the vehicle with Registration No.KL-12-A-5637, Autorickshaw for the purpose of cancellation of hypothecation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
2. The Opposite Party No.2 is directed to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the RC of the Complainant without seeking NOC of the Opposite Party No.1, if the Opposite Party No.1 fails to issue the NOC within one month of receipt of this Order, only if the Complainant approaches the Opposite Party No.2 with an application fulfilling all other formalities as per law, within one month of submission of application, remitting required fees.
3. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant for deficiency in service/unfair trade practice.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards cost of this complaint to the Complainant.

The above amounts shall be paid by Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28^th day of February 2024.

Date of Filing:-16.03.2020.

PRESIDENT   : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

MEMBER       : Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:-

PW1.              K. S. Balakrishnan.                         Agriculture.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          E. Mohandas.                                  Regional Transport Officer.

Exhibits for the Complainant:-

A1.                  Certificate of Registration of vehicle No.KL-12-A-5637.

A2.                  Loan Chart.

A3(Series).   Receipts (24 Numbers).   

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-

                        Nil.                 

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

                                                                                             ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

                                                                                                  CDRC, WAYANAD.

Kv/-