State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Kottayam District Co Operative Bank ... vs Omanakuttan R on 3 August, 2015
Daily Order KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO. 288/14 JUDGMENT DATED: 03.08.2015 PRESENT : JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI : PRESIDENT SHRI.V.V. JOSE : MEMBER The Kottayam District Co-operative Bank Ltd., District Co-operative Bank Buildings, Post Box No.140, Kottayam-686 001. : APPELLANT R/by the General Manager. (By Adv: Sri. R. Krishnappan Nair) Vs. Omanakuttan.R, Deepalayam, Ithithanam.P.O, Kurichy, Changanassery. Secretary, Changanassery Taluk Autoriksha- Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam, K 405, Changanassery, Rep. by- Liquidator K 405, Autoriksha- : RESPONDENT Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam, K 405, Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Changanassery. Joint R.T.O, Office of the Joint RTO Office, Changanassery. JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT This is an appeal filed by the 2nd opposite party in CC.131/11 on the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam challenging the order of the Forum dated, April 11, 2014 directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to issue NOC and other related documents for changing the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book of the vehicle of the complainant without collecting any amount and to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.2000/-.
2. The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:
The complainant purchased an Autorikshaw bearing Registration No.KL-5-6734 on December 20, 1990 with the financial assistance given by the first opposite party, Changanassery Taluk Autorikshaw Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam. He has paid Rs.54,000/- on September 13, 1998 which is endorsed in the HP pass book. The 1st opposite party, society is under liquidation. Therefore complainant could not get the permit and the NOC from the first opposite party. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the first opposite party. Second opposite party, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank is the apex body of the first opposite party.
2. The first opposite party, the Secretary, Changanassery Taluk Autorikshaw Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam in his version contended thus before the Forum. The first opposite party is under liquidation and liquidator has been appointed. Due to the non-availability of records assets and liabilities cannot be detected. The process has been initiated properly for collection of the amount due to the first opposite party and to pay the amounts due to others. As per the loan ledger of the first opposite party it is seen that complainant was given loan account No.122 and sanctioned loan amount is Rs.37,111/-. As on June 1998 the amount of Rs.15,531/- is due from the complainant which he did not pay. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
3. Second opposite party is District Co-operative Bank, Kottayam represented by its Managing Director. He in his version contended thus before the Forum. The first opposite party availed a loan of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.17,59,500/- from the 2nd opposite party for giving loan to its members for the purchase of autorikshaw. The loan has to be repaid in instalments. The 1st opposite party committed default in making repayment. Therefore 2nd opposite party filed A.R.C.No.3/97 before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kottayam and obtained an award on October13, 1999 allowing the 2nd opposite party to realize the awarded amount with charge over the autorikshaw. The autorikshaw was also mortgaged infavour of the 2nd opposite party. The payments made by the complainant are not credited by the 1st opposite party to the 2nd opposite party bank. Without clearing the loan the 2nd opposite party cannot release the hypothecation of autorikshaw. Therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
4. The 3rd opposite party is Joint RTO, Changassery who in his version contended that the autorikshaw is in the name of the 1st opposite party and hypothecated to the 2nd opposite party, that complainant has no connection with the autorikshaw and that therefore complaint has to be dismissed.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A3 were marked on his side and the 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit. No document was produced by the 2nd opposite party before the Forum. No evidence was adduced by the 3rd opposite party. On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and directed them to issue NOC to the complainant without collecting any amount from him and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-. Second opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.
6. Heard the counsel for the appellant and complainant who appeared in person.
7. The following points arise for consideration:-
Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2?
Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?
8. The case of the complainant is that he has availed a loan from the first opposite party for purchasing the autorikshaw and that though he has cleared the loan, the opposite party is not taking any steps to issue NOC and other related documents for changing the endorsement in the RC book. The first opposite party, Secretary, Changanassery Taluk Autorikshaw Thozhilali Sahakarana Sangam would contend that 1st opposite party is under liquidation and that complainant had not cleared the loan. The 2nd opposite party, Kottayam District Co-operative Bank represented by its Managing Director contended that the 1st opposite party did not repay the loan amount and that therefore 2nd opposite party cannot release the hypothecated autorikshaw to the complainant. There is no merit in the above contention of the opposite parties.
9. Ext.A1 pass book shows that complainant had paid Rs.54,000/- on September 15, 1998 No document is produced to show that any amount is due from the complainant or to show that complainant is a defaulter in remitting the loan amount. No steps were taken by the opposite parties 1 & 2 against the complainant. Hence the complainant is not a defaulter of loan amount. Thus it is clear from the above that complainant has cleared the loan amount. Therefore he is entitled to the NOC and other related documents to change the hypothecation of the autorikshaw. Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.
10. Forum has ordered opposite parties 1 and 2 to issue NOC and other related documents to the complainant for changing the hypothecation endorsement in the RC book without collecting any fees. Forum also directed them to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. We find no reason to interfere with the said finding of the Forum.
In the result appeal is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI: PRESIDENT V.V. JOSE : MEMBER VL.