KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 585/11

JUDGMENT DATED : 21.05.2012

PRESENT:

SHRI . K. CHANDRADAS NADAR          :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR        :  MEMBER

SMT. A. RADHA                                       :  MEMBER

1.      Manappuram General Finance –

and Leasing Ltd., Manappuram House,

Valappad P.O., Thrissur,

Represented by its Chairman &

Managing Director.

2.      Manikandan, Sales Representative,

          Manappuram General Finance –

and Leasing Ltd.,                                      :  APPELLANTS

Kanhangad Branch.

3.      Subash, Sales Representative,

          Manappuram General Finance –

and Leasing Ltd.,

Kanhangad Branch.

(By Adv. J.S. Asok Kumar)

Vs

1.      N. Khader, S/o Sulaiman,

          Kalluvila Veedu, Thekkil Ferry P.O.,

          Bevinja, Kasargode Taluk,

          Kasargode District.

(By Adv. S. Reghukumar)

2.      Nishad, Sales Representative,

          Zain Motors, Near Chandragin Bridge,

          Kasargode.

                                                                   :  RESPONDENTS

3.      Basheer, Proprietor,

          Zain Motors, Near Chandragin Bridge,

          Kasargode.

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER

Challenging the sustainability of the order passed by the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC No. 77/10 allowing the complaint and for the direction to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.2,000/- and further exemption of the complainant from any amount payable to the opposite party, the opposite parties came up in this appeal.

2.      The complainant entered into a hypothecation agreement with the 3^rd opposite party for purchasing an auto rickshaw and availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- and agreed to repay the loan amount in equal monthly instalment of Rs.3,450/-  on 2.1.07. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the vehicle and the 3^rd opposite party is the financier. It is the case of the complainant that the 1^st opposite party who is the sales representative of the 2^nd opposite party took the original RC of the vehicle and informed him that the RC will be returned after the remittance of first monthly instalment of the loan. Even after repeated requests made by the complainant the RC was not returned to the complainant. It is the very case of the complainant that on 3.5.08 the Transport Authority seized the vehicle for non payment of tax in time and registered a case with the traffic police. Though the complainant approached the authorities to get his vehicle, due to the non production of RC he could not fetch his vehicle from the police station nor could he pay the tax. The complainant could not pay the instalments after the seizure of the vehicle. Due to the seizure of the vehicle the complainant was left without the vehicle as well as the amount he had already remitted. He also left out with no means for earning his livelihood. Even though the complainant approached the opposite parties for the RC book it was not returned and the opposite parties were threatening him to pay the loan amount. Hence filed this complaint.

3.      The opposite parties filed version contending that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in repayment of the loan. As per the terms of hypothecation agreement, the complainant had to repay the loan amount in equal monthly instalment of Rs.3,450/- each for which he remitted only Rs.29,950/- in total during the whole year of 2007. In 2008 the complainant paid only Rs.5,000/- on 10.4.08. In 2007 the complainant paid only 9 instalments that too on belated dates, while the 12 instalments due totaling Rs.41,400/-. The opposite party did not retain the RC book and the allegation is false and frivolous. The complainant himself had informed that the vehicle was seized by the authorities on 3.5.08. The Regional Transport Officer issued the memo to the complainant on 4.6.2008 itself. This matter was submitted to the opposite parties after one year from the date of seizure of vehicle and the complainant demanded the RC book from the opposite party by a letter dated 19.6.09. By defaulting the payments the complainant violated the agreement of the hypothecation. The letter dated 19.6.09 was merely to avoid the payment due to the opposite parties. It is also contended that after the completion of the registration the 2^nd opposite party returned the RC book to the complainant.

4.      The evidence consisted of the oral testimony of PW1 and documents Exts. A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant and DW1 on the side of the opposite party and documents marked as Exts. B1 and B2 .

5. On an appreciation of evidence and documents the Forum below came to the conclusion that no document was produced by the 3^rd opposite party to show that after getting RC from 2^nd opposite party (Ext. B1) they returned RC to the complainant. So it is to be presumed that the original RC of the vehicle was not returned to the complainant. It is also evident that the complainant could not pay the road tax without the original RC book and the production of RC book before the RTO is a must for remittance of the tax and thereby could not release the vehicle from the police authorities. The illegal retention of the original RC of the vehicle by the 3^rd opposite party amounted to deficiency in service and the Forum below allowed the complaint.

6.      Aggrieved by that order the appeal was preferred by the opposite parties. The counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the respondent was a defaulter of repayment of the loan as evidenced by Ext. A7. It is true that the complainant entrusted the original RC with the 3^rd opposite party which was returned after making the hypothecation in the RC book. The vehicle was seized by the authorities on 3.5.08 for non-payment of tax. This was informed to the appellant only on 19.6.09, ie after one year. In the meantime the complainant did not approach the opposite parties for the RC book. Normally after making the inscription of hypothecation in the RC, it will be returned to the registered owner, immediately, and it goes without saying that the complainant could not remit the loan amount if the vehicle kept idle. Though the RC book was given to 3^rd opposite party as per Ext B1 on 9.2.07 it was returned immediately after making the noting of hypothecation in the RC book. It is also to be pointed out that the insurance of the vehicle was not paid by the complainant. The counsel argued that the complaint was filed in order to evade the repayment of the loan amount.

7.      The counsel for the respondent vehemently argued that the appellant did not return the RC book. The respondent could not ply the vehicle and earn his livelihood. Further he was unable to repay the loan amount. Moreover, the respondent lost the down payment already remitted by himself. The complainant could not take away his vehicle from police station without the production of RC book and the RC book could not be fetched otherwise without payment of the tax. There is no single piece of paper to show that the appellants returned the RC book. The counsel for the respondent urged before us that the complainant was at a loss by all means ie, he lost his vehicle, money, and also his livelihood and it is to be compensated.

8.      On hearing the counsel for the appellant/respondent in detail, we find that it is an admitted fact that the complainant availed loan of Rs.90,000/- from the opposite parties. It is also not in dispute that the complainant repaid only Rs.29,950/- and the documents shows (Ext. A7) the complainant was a defaulter and violated the conditions of repayment. The complainant issued the letter for RC book only on 19.6.09. The vehicle was seized by the authorities on 3.5.08. There is nothing in evidence before us to show that the complainant approached the opposite party for RC book immediately or before 19.6.2009. The document produced as Ext. A4 attested copy of the certificate of registration produced by the complainant shows that he was in a possession of a copy of the RC book. The complainant received a memo from the Regional Transport Office on 4.6.08 to pay Rs.480/- towards the tax. It is true that the Ext. B1 shows the RC book was received by the 3^rd opposite party on 9.2.07. The appellant failed to convince us that the RC book was returned to the complainant after on 9.2.07. The facts being so, complainant might have been put to difficulties for payment of the registration tax and further he could not release the vehicle from the police station which were caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties.

9.      We are of the considered view that the respondent/complainant is to be compensated. We would like to modify the order of the lower Forum to the extent that the appellants are directed to provide a duplicate RC book to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The loan was availed on an agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties on specific terms and conditions for repayment and the Forum is not justified in canceling the repayment of the loan.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part directing the appellants/opposite parties to provide a duplicate RC book from the authorities along with a compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The appellants are at liberty to proceed for, recovery of the loan amount as per law.

Parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.

A. RADHA           :  MEMBER

S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         :  MEMBER

K. CHANDRADAS NADAR  :   JUDICIAL MEMBER

DA