ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to pay Rs.4,26,750/- to complainant towards compensation, Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/- cost of litigation and direct the opposite parties No.3 & 4 not to seize the vehicle till disposal of consumer complaint”.
The brief fact of the case is that, the opposite party No.1 & 2 are the trader who sold the three wheeler auto rickshaw to the complainant under agreement to purchase hypothecation and financed by opposite parties No.3 & 4 on 02.7.2015. As per agreement executed between the complainant and opposite parties No.3 & 4 it is agreed that the complainant will pay a sum of Rs.50,750/- as initial money including registration and insurance and will pay the loan amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. As per terms and conditions of the agreement the complainant has paid to the opposite parties No.3 & 4 of Rs.2,20,000/- in 30 installments and there 14 installments is now standing for payment. Till date there is four overdue installments is payable by the complainant. Although the complainant has paid the dues to the opposite parties No.1 & 2 for registration of vehicle but the opposite parties No.1& 2 have not yet registered the vehicle as such the complainant is unable ply t he vehicle and get any profit but by selling paddy and other crops paid the installments dues to the opposite parties No.3 & 4 due to latches and negligence of the opposite parties No.1 & 2. The complainant could not yield any profit from the vehicle, he could not able to pay the installments dues in time and the opposite parties No.3 & 4 realized penal interest from the complainant and now threatening to seize the vehicle and put the vehicle into public auction.
The opposite parties No.1 & 2 have filed their reply stating as under;
The consumer complaint has been filed after a period of two and half years from the date of cause of action. In as much as vehicle in question has been purchased on 02.7.2015 and the issue pertaining to registration of vehicle should have been raised during July, 2015. Therefore as per section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act which clearly stipulates that the District Forum shall not entertain the consumer complaint, unless it has been filed within two years from the date of cause of action. After the sale of the vehicle the opposite parties has sent all the necessary sales certificate, invoice as well as the temporary registration certificate. The fact pertaining to registration of vehicle is the duty of the registering authority and it is the registering authority who can appropriately throw light about the non registration of the vehicle within the statutory period as prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant should have been impleaded the RTO as a necessary party to the present proceeding, so that effective adjudication of the case could have been done in order to do justice between the parties.
Opposite party No.3 & 4 financers have filed their reply stating as under;
As per agreement on 02.7.2015 the complainant has to be pay interest for an amount of Rs.92,592/- accordingly the complainant has to pay the total agreement value of Rs.1,80,000/- + Rs.92,592/- = Rs.2,72,592/-. The said finance amount was to be repaid by the complainant in 47 monthly installments @ Rs.6,300/- from 02.7.2015 to 01.6.2019, accordingly the repayment schedule and agreement copy issued to the complainant. It was an essential pre-requisite that the said installments was to be paid on 1st day of each month as per terms and conditions of the said agreement, failing which overdue interest and delay payment charges would accrue in the loan account of the complainant and the complainant had also agreed to pay cheque bounce charges in case his instruments on that accord were dishonored on presentation on such due dates. The complainant had failed to adhere to the repayment schedule as per the terms and conditions of the financial arrangement through such a duly executed agreement. The complainant had made almost all his payments beyond the due date of payment of the same as a result of which considerable delay payment charges and penal interest accrued in his account as per the terms and conditions.
Though notice was issued to opposite parties No.1 & 2 i.e. the dealer of the vehicle who has sold the vehicle and give their version in this proceeding. As per section 41 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 quoted below;
S.41.Registration,how to be made.-(1)An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.
(Provided further that in the case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in the State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new motor vehicle is being registered in the same state in which the dealer is situated).
It is not at all disputed that the vehicle was purchased from opposite parties No.1 & 2 and it was to be registered within the State and opposite parties No.1 & 2 has failed in their duty to register the vehicle is complete violation of Section 41 as quoted above.
Several cases have come to our knowledge regarding non- registration of tractors in rural areas causing loss of revenue to public exchequer for which we direct our registry to send copy of the order to RTO, Jagatsinghpur, STA, Cuttack and Secretary Transport and Vigilance Department to enquire about non registration of particularly tractors in RTO, Jagatsinghpur and necessary steps may be taken to recover the revenue of state exchequer. The role of complainant as hand in gloves cannot be ruled out, as complainant has sat over the matter for 2 and ½ years after purchasing the vehicle and did not make any correspondence to register the vehicle as such complainant is not above suspicion in the racket by plying the vehicle without registration and paying tax to Government exchequer causing loss to public revenue.
Since the opposite parties No.1 & 2 have failed to register the vehicle with the RTO, we held the opposite parties No.1 & 2 are negligent in their duty in registering the vehicle and insuring the vehicle which is gross deficiency in service as such we direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to register the vehicle and insure vehicle immediately bearing the entire cost of registration and insurance for such deficiency in service. Opposite party No.3 & 4 shall not press hard to repay the loan and repossess the vehicle at least for six months after registration of vehicle.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 09th Feb.,2023.
