M.V.VISWANATHAN, J. - (1.)The above appeal is filed against the order dated:21st June 2010 of the CDRF, Kasaragod in CC.167/09. The allegation in the said complaint was that the opposite parties failed to return the registration certificate of the vehicle on closure of the loan transaction entered into between the complainant and opposite party/financier. The opposite parties entered appearance and denied the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the loan was closed and the registration certificate was handed over to the complainant. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and a witness from the side of the opposite parties was examined as DW1. Exts.A1 to A5 series and B1 and B2 documents were also produced from the side of the parties to the said complaint. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to return the registration certificate of the vehicle with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/-. Hence the present appeal. Notice in this appeal was served on the respondent /complainant and he entered appearance through counsel of his choice. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant. The counsel for the appellants much relied on Exts.B1 and B2 documents and argued for the position that the opposite parties returned the registration certificate to the complainant and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant availed a loan of Rs.30,000/- from the opposite parties for the purchase of a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-14 D 7291. Admittedly, the registration certificate of the said vehicle was entrusted with the opposite party/financier on availing the aforesaid loan. It is also an admitted fact that the respondent/complainant paid the entire loan amount with interest and the said loan transaction was closed. It is the definite case of the respondent/complainant that the opposite parties failed to return the RC of the vehicle on closure of the loan transaction. Hence the complaint was filed alleging deficiency of service. The definite case of the opposite parties (appellants) is that they have returned the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant on closure of the loan transaction. Admittedly, there is no document forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to substantiate their contention that the RC was returned to the complainant on closure of the loan transaction. Ext.B1 and B2 documents are only photocopies of the registration certificate and registration particulars of the said vehicle. Those photocopies are not attested by any competent authority. So, the Forum below has rightly placed no reliance on those documents. The Forum below has also doubted the genuineness and correctness of those documents because of the production of those documents by the opposite parties. No reasonable explanation is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties as to how the opposite parties came into possession of B1 copy of the registration certificate. It is also the case of the opposite parties that the complainant availed another loan by pledging the RC certificate with another financier by name Sriram Transport Finance Company. But no document is forthcoming from the side of the opposite parties to substantiate their contention that the complainant himself availed another loan from Sriram Transport Company. He had there been any such hire purchase transaction between the complainant and the financier Sriram Transport Finance Company, definitely there would be a hire purchase agreement entered into between the parties. But the opposite parties could not adduce any evidence to show the existence of such a hire purchase agreement. Thus, the Forum below is perfectly justified in coming to a definite finding that the opposite parties failed to return the registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant, on closure of the loan transaction. Thus, the finding of the Forum below that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties can be upheld. Forum below has only directed the opposite party to return the registration certificate to the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.3000/-. The compensation and cost awarded by the Forum below can be treated as just and reasonable. So, the present appeal deserves dismissal at the admission stage itself. In the result, the appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is confirmed. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.