D.o.F: 26/4/10

D.o.O: 18/8/10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                 CC.NO. 103/10

                 Dated this, the 18^th   day of August 2010

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                        : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                     : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI           : MEMBER

N.J.Vargese,

Kumblasseriyil  House,

Ujampadi, Delampadi Po,                               :  Complainant

Mulleria,Kasaragod

(in person)

 1.Zain Motors, Bajaj,

Kasaragod

2.Sriram Finance,Annagoor, Kasaragod         : Opposite parties

(Adv.Raveendran,Hosdurg)

                                                    ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

   Complainant purchased a motor cycle from Ist opposite party with the financial aid of 2^nd opposite party.  At the time of advancing finance facility to purchase the motor cycle 2^nd opposite party retained the original RC book and duplicate key of the bike with them.  It was told that they will return the RC and duplicate key at the time of  closing the loan.  After closing  the loan complainant approached opposite party to get  back the RC and duplicate key.  Though RC is given back, duplicate key is not returned back inspite of his repeated approaches.  Hence the complaint praying for an order directing  2^nd opposite party to return the duplicate  key of his vehicle together with compensation and cost.

2.    According to 2^nd opposite party they did not retain  original RC and key with them.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.  Complainant adduced evidence as PW1 .  No documents or oral evidence adduced by opposite party.

4.    PW1 during examination deposed that he deposited RC and duplicate key of his motor cycle with 2^nd opposite party at the time of availing the loan.  After closing loan 2^nd opposite party returned RC but key is not given back to him. On enquiry made it was told that due to the shifting of opposite parties office the duplicate key is misplaced and if the complainant pay ` 850/- then they are ready to make available a duplicate key.  He further deposed that he has suffered very much  due to the illegal  retention  of duplicate key by 2^nd opposite party.

         We do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of  complainant.  Hence we find deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

   The complaint is therefore partly allowed and opposite party is directed to give back the duplicate key with a cost of ` 2000/- to the complainant.  Time for compliance is  30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.   In the event of failure to return the duplicate key then opposite party shall further liable to pay ` 850/- in addition to the cost of ` 2000/-.

 Sd/                                                 Sd/                                 Sd/   

MEMBER                                   MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

PW1-N.J.Vargese- complainant

eva/

/Forwarded by Order/

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT