KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No. 49/2018

ORDER DATED: 08.11.2019

(Against the Order in C.C. 204/2017 of CDRF, Wayanad, Kalpetta)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN              : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                                   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RANJIT. R                                                                              : MEMBER

REVISION PETITIONER:

The Manager, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Thottathil Complex, Chulliyodu Road, Sulthan Batheri Post, Wayanad.

          (By Adv. Abhishek. R.V)

                                                Vs.

REVISION COUNTER PETITIONER:

Surendran. C.K, Padiparambu House, Chulliyode Post, Nenmeni Amsom Desom, Sulthan Bathery Taluk, Wayanad.

ORDER

SRI. RANJIT. R: MEMBER

Opposite party has filed this revision against the Order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Wayanad in I. A. No. 157/2018 in C.C. No. 204/2017 dated 26.09.2018 whereby the Forum by its Order directed them to issue NOC to the petitioner’s/complainant’s vehicle before 03.10.2018 on condition that the petitioner shall use the NOC only for renewing the permit of the vehicle. 

2.  The District Forum appreciating the facts and circumstances involved and considering the fact that the validity of the permit of the petitioner’s vehicle plying as taxi ended on 12.09.2018 and for getting the premium renewed, in order to ply the vehicle, directed the opposite party to issue NOC.  The direction was on condition that the NOC should be used only for renewing the permit.  Challenge in the revision is against this Order. 

3.  Even though notice was served to the complainant/ revision counter petitioner he did not appear.  We heard the counsel for the revision petitioner and perused the Order challenged in revision.

4.  The learned counsel for the revision petitioner urged that the process of renewal of permit of transport vehicle is governed by Sec. 81 of the M.V. Act, 1988.  It has references to Sec. 51 of the Act.  Under Sec. 51(6) of the M.V. Act the registered owner has to request for the NOC to the financier.  Under Sec. 51(7) the financier may either issue NOC or refuse to issue the same, and it is the prerogative of the financier.   The financier has every right to object the renewal of the permit as further renewal of the permit would further deteriorate the value of the hypothecated vehicle where there is a greater amount of money to be repaid by the customer.  Even if the financier had denied the NOC or expressed its dissent, the RTO has all authority to consider the renewal subject to the provisions under Sec. 81(4).  He further canvassed that the lower forum passed the Order without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner to file objection. 

5.  Special provision regarding motor vehicle subject to hire purchase agreement is covered by Sec. 51 of the M.V. Act.  As per Sec. 51(6) the registered owner shall, before applying to the appropriate authority, for the renewal of the permit under Sec. 81, make an application to the person with whom the registered owner has entered into an agreement (such person referred to as the financier) for the issue of No Ob