ORDER

T.S.P. Moosath, Judicial Member—The 3rd opposite party in C.C. No. 87/2010 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad (in short, the District Forum) has filed this appeal against the order passed by the District Forum on 06.01.2016 by which the opposite parties 3, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 3,10,000/- (Rs. 2,02,000 + Rs. 1,08,000/-) which was spent by the complainant with interest @ 18% per annum from 09.07.2009 till payment and they are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and previous litigation expenses and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as costs of the proceedings to the complainant. The 6th opposite party is directed to write off the booked tax for the period from 01.01.2010 till the date of putting the vehicle on road with proper records.

2. The averments contained in the complaint are, in brief, as follows:—

1The complainant purchased a truck having No. KL 08 T 3822 from the 4th opposite party on assurance that the truck was free from any liability and an agreement was executed to that effect. At the time of executing the agreement Rs. 2,02,000/- was given as advance to the 4th opposite party out of the total amount fixed Rs. 5,02,000/- as sale price. For the remaining amount the complainant had taken a loan from the 1st opposite party of Rs. 3,00,000/- and adjusted towards the sale consideration and which was agreed to be repaid in 24 monthly instalments of Rs. 18,000/- each to the 1st opposite party. The repayment chart was also given to the complainant. The liable sum in total was Rs. 4,22,200/- including interest. The opposite parties 1 & 2 received from the complainant two signed blank stamp papers and two blank cheque leaves signed by the complainant drawn on of the South Malabar Gramin Bank, Kalloor Branch, bearing No. 344711 and 344712. The complainant was informed that the vehicle was free from any liability. When the agreement was executed the 4th opposite party who was the RC owner and the complainant and witnesses also signed the agreement. The vehicle was used by the complainant for his self-employment to meet his livelihood. Later the vehicle was seized by SHO Thalassery in connection with the Crime No. 273/09 of SHO Thalassery police station on 28.11.2009. The allegation that led to the registering of the crime was that the 3rd opposite party had filed a CMP before the JFCM Thalassery stating that the said vehicle was earlier under the ownership of one Prasad (opposite party No. 5) and he had availed a loan of Rs. 3,25,000/- from 3rd opposite party executing a hypothecation agreement but had not repaid the loan amount. So the complainant filed a petition under Sec. 451 of Cr.P.C. as C.M.P. 3506/09 before the Addl. CJM Court, Thalassery on 30.11.2009 for the interim custody of the vehicle. On the same day the 3rd opposite party also filed another C.M.P. as 3505/09 for the release of said vehicle to him. Then the 1st and 2nd opposite parties approached the complainant and stated that more possibility of getting release of vehicle was to the 1st opposite party since he was the present hirer of the vehicle and promised that 1st opposite party would get release of the vehicle from the court and hand over the same to the complainant unconditionally. Believing the assurance of 1st and 2nd opposite parties and the legal advice he received, the complainant handed over the original R.C. of his vehicle and other documents to the 1st opposite party and withdrew his C.M.P. as promised. The 1st opposite party filed a C.M.P. as 3591/09 before the Addl. CJM Court, Thalassery to release the said vehicle claiming that he was the right person to get the release of the said vehicle being the hirer but the court dismissed the petition and released the vehicle to 3rd opposite party finding that 3rd opposite party was the earlier financier. So, the complainant again filed a petition before the same court as C.M.P. 178/10 for the release of the said vehicle. But th