- (1.) THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the order dated 13.6.2006 in Complaint No. 242/2004 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was allowed and the O.P. No. 3 was directed to hand over the Registration Certificate and No Dues Certificate regarding Vehicle No. CG -04F/7892 and CG -07F/6247 within a period of 15 days besides paying Rs. 1,000 towards damages and Rs. 500 towards cost of proceedings. Aggrieved by the order, the O.P. No. 3 has come up in appeal.
(2.) AS per averments of the complainant, brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle No. CG -07F/7892 on 20.7.2002 from O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 39,500. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 also provided finance to the complainant for purchasing the aforesaid vehicle. The complainant had paid Rs. 8,800 in cash and remaining amount was financed by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The financed amount was to be repaid in 19 instalments of Rs. 1,800 as per the averments made in the complaint. The complainant had also purchased an old vehicle Suzuki Mens motor cycle from O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. The said vehicle was registered in the name of Sohanlal Nayak and the complainant had purchased the said vehicle from O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 on 13.12.2003 for Rs. 14,100. A sum of Rs. 9,500 was paid on the same date whereas the remaining Rs. 4,600 was paid on 20.12.2003. It was alleged by the complainant that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 had failed to hand over the Registration book and No Dues Certificate relating to Bajaj Boxer motor cycle No. CG -07F/7892 despite repayment of loan amount. It is further averred in the complaint that when the complainant requested to hand over the full set of documents O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 handed over a letter on 19.8.2004 to the effect that they had got the veicle financed by Ridhi Sidhi Finance Co. Ltd. i.e., O.P. No. 3, and the instalments paid by the complainant have been handed over to the said financier O.P. No. 3 but the documents have not yet been received and as soon as the documents are received, the same will be handed over to the complainant. But the O.P. failed to hand over the documents to the complainant, hence the complaint was filed. Regarding the other vehicle also, O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 handed over a letter to the complainant to similar effect. Hence the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum with the prayer that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 be directed to hand over No Dues Certificate and registration book and also to make payment of damages, etc.
(3.) O .P. Nos. 1 and 2 filed joint reply to the complaint. The main averments in the written version were to the effect that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 acted as agent of O.P. No. 3 and helped the customers to obtain finance from O.P. No. 3. It was further averred that the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 have not committed any deficiency in service. They received the amount from the complainant and forwarded the same to the financier i.e., O.P. No. 3. The registration book is in the possession of O.P. No. 3, hence unless the same is not received by them from O.P. No. 3, the same cannot be handed over to the complainant. It was further averred that it has been falsely alleged in the complaint that finance was provided by O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. Actually the finance was received from O.P. No. 3. It was prayed in the written version filed on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 that the said O.Ps. cannot be held liable in the facts and circumstances of the case. O.P. No. 3 resisted the complaint and filed written version. It was admitted that Bajaj Boxer was financed by the said O.P. whereas regarding the other vehicle it was averred that Sohanlal was the purchaser of the said vehicle and O.P. No. 3 had provided finance to Sohanlal for purchasing the vehicle. It was further averred that the complainant never obtained finance from O.P. No. 3 for purchasing the old vehicle in the name of Sohanlal. It was further averred that the complainant failed to make payment of instalments to O.P. No. 3 though the vehicle was hypothecated in favour of O.P. No. 3. There was no justification for depositing the instalment amount with O.P. Nos. 1 and 2. It was specifically denied in the written version that O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 were the agent of O.P. No. 3. It was further averred that O.P. No. 2 was known to O.P. No. 3 and due to this the O.P. No. 2 has taken Rs. 2,50,000 as loan from O.P. No. 3 but many cheques drawn by the said O.P. had been bounced and hence the O.P. No. 3 had filed several complaints against O.P. No. 2 which were pending. It was further averred that 9 instalments of Rs. 1,485 remained to be paid by the complainant to O.P. No. 3. It was further averred that the complainant in collusion with opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has filed complaint against O.P. No. 3 in order to harass him. It was further averred that Registration Book is not in the possession of O.P. No. 3. The complaint against O.P. No. 3 is not maintainable hence the same may be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs. 10,000.;