Full Judgment
Oral Order: (M. Shreesha, Member)
1) Aggrieved by the order in CC No. 24/2012 on the file of Dist. Forum, Kurnool, the complainant preferred this appeal.
2) The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant purchased a seized vehicle from the opposite party for Rs. 95,000/- and the opposite party also issued a receipt for the same but in spite of several requests the opposite party did not give him original record of the vehicle instead asked the complainant to produce the vehicle in a Criminal Case at Hyderabad and after two months the opposite party returned the vehicle to the complainant but did not transfer the vehicle in the complainants name. The complainant submits that he intended to sell the vehicle but he could not do so as he did not have the Registration Certificate in his name. Hence the complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party on 25.3.2010 and requested the opposite party for refund of Rs. 95,000/-. He also got issued legal notice on 29.6.2010 but there was no response. Hence this complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 95,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.
3) The opposite party filed written version admitting that the complainant purchased a seized vehicle for Rs. 95,000/- and that the R.C. was in the name of original owner Sri Pandu Rangaiah from 22.3.2006 to 30.8.2010 and that the complainant was assured that after getting the registration in the name of the opposite party the vehicle will be transferred in his name. The original file of case of theft was in Afzalguda Police Station and the officials of the opposite party went to the Police Station and got it released on 30.8.2010. The vehicle was transferred in the name of Op and on 25.3.2010 the complainant was informed to produce the vehicle before the R.T.O and to get FRC in his name but the complainant did not turn up instead enjoyed the vehicle for four years and no case was registered by R.T.O. or by the police, and denied that the vehicle was in the Police Station for two months and contended that the opposite party got released the vehicle within a weeks time. The opposite party contends that it is unfair for the complainant to seek refund of Rs. 95,000/- after using the vehicle for four years and submits that they are ready to get the FRC in the name of the complainant, if he co-operates with the opposite party to fulfil the formalities.
4) The Dist. Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs. A1 to A9 and the pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint.
5) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
6) The learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent filed written arguments.
7) It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he had purchased a seized vehicle from the opposite party for Rs. 95,000/- and in spite of several requests the opposite party did not hand over the original records to enable him to take fresh FRC , and in fact he was asked to produce the vehicle in a Criminal Case at Hyderabad and the said vehicle was returned to him only after two months and that the vehicle has been handed over to Op and is in their possession since 25.3.2010 and in spite of legal notice dt. 29.6.2010 evidenced under Ex. A3 there was no response from the opposite party with respect to refund of the amount of Rs. 95,000/- which he spent for purchase of the vehicle. Ex. A1 is the receipt for Rs. 95,000/- issued by the opposite party. Ex. A5 is the copy of FIR which is dt. 28.3.2006 and Ex. A6 is the charge sheet which is dt. 6.4.2006, and the seizure report is dt. 7.7.2006 evidenced under Ex. A7. Ex. A8 is the Photostat copy of the deposition of Sri Pandu Ranga Rao dt. 18.2.2010 in CC No. 308/2006.
8) It is the appellant/complainants case that the opposite party did not give reply to his Ex. A2 letter dt. 25.5.2010 and also did not reply to the Ex. A3 legal notice. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the said vehicle was involved in a theft case as is evident from Ex. A5 FIR and Ex. A8 which is the deposition of the previous owner and that the opposite party suppressed the involvement of said vehicle in a Criminal Case and though the vehicle was sold to him on 6.9.2006 the vehicle was not transferred in his favour till 31.3.2010 and FRC was not made in favour of the complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant denied that the opposite party requested the complainant to come forward for transfer of FRC in his favour at least after 31.3.2010. The opposite party filed Form-24 along with written version which shows that the vehicle was transferred in the name of the financier w.e.f. 30.8.2010. It is pertinent to note that this transfer was made only after issuance of legal notice under Ex. A3 from the complainant dt. 29.6.2010. It is the respondent/opposite partys case that after getting the vehicle transferred in its favour the complainant was requested to get the fresh FRC but he did not turn up.
9) It is pertinent to note that the vehicle was in the possession of the opposite party and that the complainant used the vehicle only from 6.9.2006 to 25.3.2010. To reiterate, the opposite party transferred the vehicle in its name only after the complainant got issued Ex. A3 legal notice. The contention of Op that the complainant did not take steps to get the vehicle transferred in his name is unsustainable in the light of Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 correspondence and notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party. The Dist. Forum directed the opposite party to return the vehicle bearing No. AP05 AB 9159 along with relevant documents to the complainant. After taking possession of the said vehicle the complainant is at liberty to get the vehicle transferred in his name. While we agree with the observation of the Dist. Forum that the vehicle has to be returned to the complainant and that both parties should co-operate in getting the necessary documentation done, still, the fact remains that the vehicle is in possession of the opposite party from 25.3.2010. It is also pertinent to note that the opposite party did not issue any intimation to the complainant calling upon him to take his vehicle or to co-operate with the opposite party for necessary documentation on any date after 25.3.2010. As seen from the record that there are no documents filed on behalf of opposite party and also did not choose to prefer any appeal. Taking into consideration that the vehicle was lying with the opposite party for the last three years, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- as he has already paid Rs. 95,000/- and has used the vehicle from 6.9.2006 to 25.3.2010 and also suffered mental agony with respect to police complaint etc., evidenced under Ex. A5 to A7.
10) For the aforementioned reasons, this appeal is allowed in part modifying the order of the Dist. Forum and we also direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and costs of Rs. 5,000/- while confirming the rest of the order of the Dist. Forum. Time for complaint four weeks.