Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/381

SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ZAKIR - Opp.Party(s)

NARAYAN R

02 Apr 2018

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL.No.381/14

JUDGMENT DATED:02.04.2018

PRESENT : 

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V.JOSE                                                                     : MEMBER

 

1. Shriram Transport Finance Company,

Maharaja Complex, Near Police Station,

Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad, Rep. by its-

Authorised Signatory-Sajilu.T.

                                                                                                : APPELLANTS

2. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd.,

Sreepadam Building, Cherootty Road,

Calicut, Repd. By its authorized signatory-Sajilu.T.

 

(By Adv: Sri. Narayan . R)

 

            Vs.

Zakir, S/o Kunhimohammed,

Cholayil House, Chenamkolly,

Muttil P.O, Vythiri Taluk,                                                   : RESPONDENT

Wayanad District-673 122.

 

(By Adv: Smt. Suja Madhav)

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI. S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

 

        Opposite parties in CC.120 of 2013 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wyanad, for short the district forum, have filed this appeal challenging the order of the forum directing them to hand over the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant, and, if the certificate was not available, then, take steps to obtain a certificate from the transport authorities in the name of the complainant.  Opposite parties were also directed to reschedule the chart for repayment of the amount advanced on the hypothecation of motor vehicle with effect from the date of handing over the documents of the vehicle to the complainant.  Aggrieved by the order, opposite parties have preferred this appeal.

 

2.     Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus:        Complainant purchased a second hand tipper motor vehicle from one Moosa, its owner, when the vehicle continued to be hypothecated towards the loan availed from the opposite parties.  He effected the purchase obtaining a loan from the opposite parties on 18.08.2012 for an amount of Rs.5 lakhs.  Documents of the vehicle including registration certificate were collected by the opposite parties assuring that necessary endorsement over transfer of ownership of the vehicle will be effected with the transport authorities. Though he paid substantial amount towards monthly installments on the loan availed, the registration certificate with endorsement  transferring  ownership in his favour was not handed over to him by the opposite parties and, thus, he was prevented from plying the vehicle though he had obtained a certificate of insurance over the vehicle, was his case.  He imputed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.  Opposite parties in their version, resisting the claim of the complainant contended that the registration certificate was not collected by them and the complainant had failed to remit the tax in time. There was default on the part of the complainant in paying the tax for the vehicle, which, according to them, was paid only on 12.04.13.  Delay in paying the tax was the reason for not effecting change of ownership was the case of the opposite parties refuting the claim of compensation canvassed by the complainant.

 

3.     Evidence consisted of testimony of complainant as PW-1 and exhibit A-1 to A-8 on his side.  Opposite party examined one of its executive as OPW-1 and marked exhibit B1 and B2.  Forum below, appreciating the materials tendered by both sides, accepted the case of the complainant that there was default on the part of the opposite parties in handing over the registration certificate of the hypothecated vehicle after effecting transfer of its ownership in his name.  Rescheduling of the payment of  loan advanced over the vehicle adjusting the amount already paid in installments by the complainant was ordered by the forum directing that the installment payment thereof has to commence only after handing over of all vehicular documents to the complainant.  With the above directions, the opposite parties were also ordered to hand over to the complainant all the vehicular documents including registration certificate after effecting change of ownership in his name.  Cost for change of ownership of vehicle in the registration certificate was to be borne by both the parties equally.

 

4.     We heard counsel on both sides.  The learned counsel for the appellants (opposite party) assailed the order of the forum contending that the issues projected in the complaint for a resolution demanded settlement of accounts and it was possible only through a civil court.  The relationship between the parties was one of creditor and debtor and dispute involved was outside the scope of Consumer Protection Act was the further submission of the counsel.  Producing a copy of the registration details of the motor vehicle involved in the case from the official web site of the motor vehicle dept., the learned counsel contended that the transfer of ownership over the hypothecated vehicle in the name of the complainant had been effected on 29^th June 2013 and as such, the various directions thereof by the forum below are unsustainable.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent (complainant) contended that there was inordinate delay in effecting transfer of ownership over the hypothecated vehicle and registration certificate was not handed over to the complainant preventing him from remit the tax and obtaining permit to ply the vehicle.  No interference with the order of forum below is called for in the true facts of the case, is the submission of the counsel. 

 

5.     We do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants challenging jurisdiction of the consumer forum over entertaining and deciding the complaint on its merit.  Opposite parties are engaged in the business of providing finance on obtaining security like hypothecation of motor vehicles.  Purely it is commercial transaction and when there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, anyone who had transacted business with them can raise a consumer complaint provided he fits within the definition of ‘consumer’.  We do not find any merit in the challenge raised before the lower forum that the complainant was carrying on commercial business in plying commercial vehicle.  He has a definite case that he could not ply the vehicle since permit could not be obtained due to the fault of opposite parties in handing over the RC book changing ownership in his name.  Complaint was not filed for settlement of accounts and that was not the issue involved and, as such, the challenge canvassed on that ground has no merit.

 

6.     Perusing the records, we notice that the financial arrangement between the parties over the vehicle was entered on 18.08.12 and the sum involved was Rs.5 lakhs.  Despite collecting 3 instilments on the loan amount due by the complainant, transfer of ownership of the vehicle effecting necessary endorsement in the registration certificate was not made. The vehicle was already under loan arrangement with the previous owner when it was purchased by the complainant by taking a loan from the opposite parties.  When the vehicle was the security for the loan, naturally,  “no objection” from financiers was required to effect necessary for changing its ownership in favour of the complainant.  Despite an advocate notice issued by the complainant, no steps were taken by the opposite parties to change the ownership of vehicle in his name.  Even if we go by the registration details collected from the web site of the motor vehicle department, change of ownership was effected only on 29.06.13.  There is no evidence to show that the registration certificate after effecting the transfer of ownership was handed over to the complainant.  Without change of ownership, he could not have obtained a transport permit to ply the vehicle through public road.  Contention of the opposite parties that it was due to the fault of the complainant that change of ownership was not effected in the registration certificate is not susceptible.  We also find that the insurance certificate was issued over the vehicle even before the change of ownership from an insurance company, the name of which suggests its close nexus with the opposite parties.  Circumstances presented as above clearly point out that the financier (opposite parties) retained the original RC book, and never taken any step for changing the ownership of vehicle in favour of the complainant.  When that be so, there is sufficient reason to hold that there was deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the opposite parties. 

 

7.     Now it is seen that ownership of the vehicle has already been transferred in favour of the complainant and the directions issued by the forum below with respect to transfer have no force.  However, on the basis of the facts presented, there is every reason to hold that the RC book was not handed over by the financier to the complainant.  Therefore, a direction is called for to enable the opposite party to obtain a duplicate registration certificate from the transport authorities. 

 

8.     Opposite parties have to issue a no objection certificate enabling the complainant to collect a duplicate RC book within two months.  Repayment of the loan amount in accordance with the directions given by the forum below over adjusting of the amount already paid, preparing a new chart etc. shall commence only after the opposite parties hand over the NOC enabling the complainant to obtain a duplicate registration certificate endorsing the change of ownership of the vehicle in his name. 

 

9.     Order passed by the lower forum is modified as indicated.  The appeal is partly allowed directing the parties to suffer their cost.  A sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the extent of success in the appeal is allowed to be realized by the appellants from the sum deposited by them to entertain their appeal filing an application before the Commission.  

 

JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN: PRESIDENT

                                                                                  

V.V.JOSE  : MEMBER

VL.