ORDER

(Passed on  27/06/2019)

PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, PRESIDENT.

       The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer

Protection Act,1986 for non transfer of ownership of auctioned vehicle in his name by the OP and thereby seeking direction to transfer the vehicle alongwith compensation of Rs.2,65,000/- alongwith 12% interest thereon.

2.      The facts in short giving rise to this petition are that the OP is a  cooperative bank and it use to finance its customers for various purposes. A new tractor bearing No.MH-34 L 5004 and trolly bearing No.MH 34-L 5006 was financed by OP to its previous owner namely Mr.Baliram Sambhaji Sambharwad. However, as said Sambhaji failed to repay the loan, the OP seized and repossessed the tractor and trolly for non payment of dues and sold it in auction to the complainant for the price of Rs.2,15,000/- with an assurance that the vehicle will be transferred soon in his name. However, despite several requests and written communications the OP took no pains to transfer the ownership of said tractor and trolly in favour of complainant neither it handed over the requisite papers in this regard to the complainant for getting it registered in his name in RTO. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 21/11/2017  to the OP through Adv.Noukarkar, however, the OP avoided to comply the notice. Therefore, the present petition has been filed.

3.      The complaint is admitted and notice was served to the OP. The OP filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against them. However, it admitted that a new tractor bearing No.MH-34 L 5004 and trolly bearing No.MH 34-L 5006 was financed by OP to its previous owner namely Mr.Baliram Sambhaji Sambharwad but as said Sambhaji failed to repay the loan, the OP seized and repossessed the tractor and trolly for non payment of dues and sold it in auction to the complainant for the price of Rs.2,15,000/-. On 23/2/2015 itself, the possession of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant. At that time, It was made clear to the complainant that it would be the responsibility of the complainant to get the vehicle transferred in his name. Thereafter also, the OP, at several times, told the complainant to collect the necessary RTO papers and ownership documents of the vehicle from the office of the OP, however, the complainant did not turn up. Therefore, the OP issued a letter dated 1/8/2018 calling upon the complainant to collect the documents from the office of the OP. Ultimately, on 13/8/2018, the original documents pertaining to vehicle alongwith dehypothecation letter were issued to the complainant alongwith letter bearing No.56/18-19 and the same have been duly received and acknowledged by the complainant vide documents filed at Exh.13/3. As the complainant, despite several requests from the side of the OP, did not took steps for getting the vehicle transferred in his name with the RTO, no blame can be fastened on the OP for the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.

4.      Counsel for the complainant argued that the OP had promised to transfer the ownership of the tractor and trolly after auction sale, however, despite several oral and written requests and legal notice to that effect, the OP failed to hand over documents required for transfer of the vehicle in his name from the RTO. Non compliance of this stipulation amounts to deficiency in service on its part.

5.        Counsel for the OP argued that it was agreed between the parties at the time of auction sale that the complainant shall take initiative to get the vehicle transfered in his name and the OP shall cooperate with him for the same. The OP has already handed over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant on on 23/2/2015 itself, and has handed over, the original documents pertaining to vehicle alongwith dehypothecation letter to the complainant on 13/8/2018 and the same have been duly received and acknowledged by the complainant vide documents filed at Exh.13/3. However, the complainant did not take steps for collection of documents from the office of the OP in between despite several requests by the OP. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

6. We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by OP, affidavit, documents and WNA filed by the parties. We have also heard the oral arguments advanced by parties.

                    Points                                                                           Finding

1.  Whether  there is deficiency in service on the part

   of OP ?                                                                     Yes

2.  What order ?                                                                   As per final order..

                             REASONING

As to issue No.1

7.     It is pertinent to note that the auction of the vehicles in question took place way back in February, 2015 and the OP has already handed over the possession of the vehicle to the complainant on 23/2/2015 itself. However, it is alleged by the complainant that despite several requests and written communications the OP took no pains to transfer the ownership of said tractor and trolly in favour of complainant. As soon as the amount is paid and the possession of the vehicle is handed over, the purchaser becomes the owner of the vehicle. However, to become a registered owner of the vehicle, the purchaser, as per section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, subject to provision of Sec.42, Sec.43 and Sec.60, every owner of motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose jurisdiction he has residence or place of business.

     There is no specific written agreement or contract on record to shoulder the responsibility to retransfer the vehicle in the name of purchaser. Hence on this count, there is no negligency on the part of OP. for abstaining to get transferred the ownership of vehicle in favour of complainant itself. It is routine nature and duty and responsibity of purchaser to get the vehicle registered in his name as soon as receipt so also the documents & possession of vehicle are handed over to him, unless specific agreement permits so.

     According to Sec.50 of the M.V.Act, the transferee or purchaser has to apply in prescribed form with necessary original documents and no objection certificate with prescribed fees for getting the vehicle transferred in his name, to the registering authority in whose jurisdiction he is residing or is carrying on business.

          The Op averred that the complainant did not turn up for collecting requisit documents from the office of the OP despite several requests by the OP. However, this plea of the OP can not be accepted as no owner of the vehicle, in the routine course of business, would act so negligently so as to render the vehicle idle without registration that too for a long period of more than three years. Further, there is nothing filed on record by the OP to show that prior to its letter dated 1/8/2018 the OP had ever called upon the complainant to collect the documents required for transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name. On the other hand, it is evident from the pleadings, letters and legal notice filed by the complainant on record, that the complainant has time and again requested the OP to hand over the documents to him so as to enable him to get the vehicle registered in his name with the RTO. It is clear from the documents filed at Exh.13/3 that the OP has handed over, the original documents pertaining to the vehicle alongwith dehypothecation letter to the complainant on 13/8/2018 and the same have been duly received and acknowledged by the complainant. This clearly shows the apathy on the part of OP in not handing over the original documents and dehypothecation letter to the complainant for more than three years despite receiving full and final consideration of the vehicle in the year 2015 itself. This is clearly a deficiency in service on the part of OP due to which the complainant could not ply the tractor and trolly for agriculture and other purposes resulting into financial loss and physical and mental harrassment to him. Hence the complainant is entitled  for adequate compensation and cost of litigation. Hence the issue is decided accordingly.

As to issue No.2

8.        In view of our observations as above, we apass the following order..

Final order

                                                 
1. The Complaint is partly allowed.

2. The OP shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.40,000/-

    towards compensation for financial loss and physical and mental agony

   for inordinate delay in supplying the original documents for

   registration of vehicle in the name of purchaser and further

   Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3. Copy of the order be furnished to both the parties free of cost.

(Smt.Kalpana Jangade (Kute)  (Smt.Kirti Vaidya (Gadgil)     (Shri.Atul D.Alsi)

               Member                                 Member                                    President