2. The Regional Transport Officer,

    R.T.O. office,

    Guntur.                                                      …Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      9-05-11 in the presence of Sri Ch. Venkata Rao, advocate for complainant and opposite parties remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking return of Rs.34,819/- (value of the vehicle), Rs.13,600/- interest on the said amount @24% p.a., Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rws.10,000/- towards traveling expenses.

2. In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant purchased a two wheeler Hero Ultra Velocity (silver) from the 1^st opposite party on 08-04-08 for Rs.34,819/- bearing No.AP07YYTR1441 and paid Rs.1,415/- to the 2nd opposite party towards life tax on the date of purchase itself.   The said vehicle was insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Limited.   When approached the 2^nd opposite party along with agent of the 1^st opposite party for permanent registration of the said vehicle, the 2^nd opposite party refused to register the said vehicle in the name of complainant stating that the descriptive vehicle was already registered in favour of another.   The complainant brought the same to the notice of the              1^st opposite party and got served a notice on 18-12-09 to both the parties.   The 1^st opposite party issued reply requiring the complainant to bring original bills, E-seva challan, form 21 and 22 to its office.  The 1^st opposite party instead of rectifying the said defect demanded the complainant to surrender the originals.   The complainant did not surrender the originals as the 1^st opposite party already committed breach of transaction and deceived the complainant without supplying the original E-seva challan, form 21 and 22.   The 1^st opposite party deceived the complainant with a malafide intention to have a wrongful gain.    The investment of Rs.34,819/- on the motor cycle is not justified as he cannot put to use.   The complainant faced much harassment due to checking by the concerned authorities in running the vehicle without permanent registration.   The complainant sustained heavy loss during these two years and sustained loss of transport charges to a tune of Rs.10,000/-.   Attitude of the 1^st opposite party caused mental agony and the complainant estimated it at Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant also entitled to interest @24% p.a., on the investment made by him.    Therefore the complaint may be allowed.

3.   The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

4.   The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party gave a reply to the complainant on                      28-12-09 (mistakenly typed as 2^nd opposite party) requesting the complainant to bring original bills, E-seva challan, Forms 21 and 22 to the office of the 1^st opposite party to raise to the occasion and finish his work.  The complainant did not come forward for submitting the required papers or present before the transport officials.   There are no valid grounds to file this complaint.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.    1^st opposite party did not advance arguments even after filing its affidavit.   Hence this Forum set him exparte.   Order is being passed on the material available on record.

6.    Exs.A-1 to A-7 on behalf of complainant were marked.

7.   Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:-

        1. Among the opposite parties who committed deficiency                          of service?

        2. Whether the complainants are entitled to compensation                               as sought and if so to what amount?

        3. To what relief?

8.      POINT No.1:-   Under Ex.A-1 the complainant purchased Hero Ultra velocity silver on 08-04-08 for Rs.34,819/-.  Ex.A-2 revealed that temporary registration was given to the vehicle purchased under     Ex.A-1 as AP07YYTR 1441.  Ex.A-3 revealed that the complainant paid Rs.1415/- towards life tax and Rs.15/- towards temporary registration fees.  Ex.A-4 revealed that the complainant insured the vehicle with M/s New India Assurance Company from 09-4-08.   The chasis number mentioned in Ex.A-1, A-2 and A-4 is one and the same.  

9.     The complaint as well as affidavit was silent when he approached the 2^nd opposite party for permanent registration.   The reply given by the 2nd opposite party to the effect that the vehicle covered by Ex.A-1 was already registered in favour of another is not in writing. 

10.   The complainant in his affidavit mentioned that he had faced much harassment by the concerned authorities for running the vehicle without permanent registration.   It can therefore be said that the complainant used the vehicle for some time without permanent registration.

11.   The 2^nd opposite party cannot register the vehicle if the chasis number covered by Ex.A-1 was already registered to another.   It can therefore be said that the 2^nd opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.

12.   The complainant in his affidavit mentioned that he has no other option except to keep the vehicle unused for want of permanent registration.  It was already observed that the complainant purchased the vehicle under Ex.A-1 on 08-04-08.   The complainant got issued notice on 18-12-09 i.e, after a lapse of 1 year 8 months.   The complainant filed this complaint on 06-04-10 i.e., on the verge of limitation.   The attitude of the complainant in running the vehicle for some period without permanent registration, issuing a notice after a delay of 1 year 8 months and filing this complaint though in time on the verge of limitation revealed his complacency.    In the absence of  any written endorsement by the 2^nd opposite party to the effect that the vehicle was already registered, it cannot be said that the 1^st opposite party also committed deficiency of service. 

        Any how it is the obligation of the 1^st opposite party to see that the vehicle covered under Ex.A-1 gets permanent registration.   In case the vehicle covered by Ex.A-1 is not possible to have registration with RTO directing the 1^st opposite party to refund the amount will meet the ends of justice.  Hence, this point is answered accordingly.

13.   POINT No.2:-   Issuing Ex.A-5 notice to the opposite party after a lapse of more than one year eight months and filing this complaint on the verge of limitation revealed the complacency of the complainant in filing the complaint.   The complainant did not take any steps to mitigate the damages.   Under those circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any amount as compensation under any count.   Hence, this point is answered in favour of the opposite parties.

14.   POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The complainant is directed to deliver the original documents to the 1^st opposite party for obtaining registration under valid acknowledgement
2. The 1^st opposite party is directed to get the vehicle registered with the transport authorities.
3. The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay Rs.34,819/- together with interest @12% p.a., from 08-04-08 till payment in case the vehicle covered by Ex.A-1 is not possible to have permanent registration.
4. The complainant should return the vehicle covered by Ex.A-1 in proper condition.
5. The 1^st opposite party is directed to intimate the registration of the vehicle or otherwise under registered post with acknowledgment.
6. The 1^st opposite party is directed pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. 
7. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 20th day of May, 2011.       

            MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

           DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:     

For opposite parties:   NIL

                                                                                                                 PRESIDENT