Orissa

Debagarh

cc/41/2015

Sidharth Guru, S/o-Indubhusan Guru, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief District Medical Officer - Opp.Party(s)

D.K. Mahapatra

05 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

DEOGARH

                       CD Case No.36/2016.

 

Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member and Shri P. C. Mahapatra, Member

 

Sidhartha Guru,

S/O. Indubhusan Guru,

At/-Gurusahi, Word No.2

Post/P.S/Dist/-Deogarh.                                          …       Complainant.

          Versus

1. Chief District Medical Officer,

At/PO/PS/Dist. – Deogarh.

2. Director, of Health Service,

Govt. of Odisha, Bhubaneswar.

                                                                        …     Opposite Parties.

 

Date of Hearing: 26.04.2016, Decided on 05.05.2016.

            Counsel for the parties:

            For the Complainant:         Shri D. K. Mahapatra, Advocate

            For the Opposite Parties:  Shri R. K. Pradhan, Govt. Pleader

 

O R D E R

 

PRATAP CHANDRA MAHAPATRA, MEMBER – The genus of the complaint  lies in the fact that the complainant is a permanent resident of Ward No.2 of Deogarh municipality in the district of Deogarh who purchased a Jeep bearing Regd.No.OR15G3592 put to sale  by O.P.no.1 .Petitioner being the highest bidder was handed over the said vehicle on payment Rs.29,990/- the bid amount on 11.11.2013 .The vehicle was deliver to him while RC Book and other relevant documents were not handed over .Even no documents pertaining to transfer of ownership of the said vehicle was handed over to him as such the complainant has averred that he is not able to ply the  vehicle on road ,since it is not road worthy accruing financial loss mental pain and agony ,hence the present complaint .

          In answer to the case of the complainant O.P.no.1 in his written version has contended that prior to sale of the Govt. vehicle bearing No.OR15D3592 the vehicle was in the state of condemnation and RC Books etc were surrendered to R.T.O. Sambalpur /Deogarh .O.P.No.1 handing over the vehicle to the complainant, as contended, have made a request to R.T.O., Sambalpur /Deogarh to change the ownership in favour of the complainant intimating the fact to the complainant on 21.6.2014.

          During hearing on 26.4.2016 complainant concluded his case by narrating contention of his petition while on behalf of the O.P learned Govt. Pleader emphasized the fact that the R.T.O., Sambalpur/Deogarh should have been made a party to the case .If it would have been made so the matter of change of ownership would have been materialized earlier .With this learned G.P concluded his case.

          On close examination of documents in records it is found that O.P has challenge the complaint on following grounds;

1. Neither the petitioner is a consumer nor the O.P are service provider to the petitioner.
2. There is no cause of action.
3. The case is bad for non-joinder necessary and proper parties.
4. The case is barred by law of limitation, jurisdiction, waiver acquiesce and estoppels.

Hence it became necessary to annalise the above grounds.

1. Govt. jeep bearing Regd.No.OR15D3592 is a goods and the O.Ps are seller who sold  the goods by way of tender sale and complainant is the purchaser , so there is no question arises of hiring of services , the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act,1996 is very much clear that a person who buys a goods is a consumer .
2. The entire process of transaction took place within the territorial jurisdiction of Deogarh district and with the sale of the vehicle and noncompliance of RC Books etc sets the cause of action.
3. Opp.Parties being the seller, complainant has prayed the full consideration to O.Ps why should he make RTO, Sambalpur, Deogarh a party to the case who has no role in the process of sale.
4. The fact that RC Books etc have been surrendered to R.T.O., Sambalpur and Deogarh as admitted by O.P.no.1 have been intimated to the petitioner vide L.No.2864 Dtd.21.06.2014 to the complainant, there is no documents to support the facts that such intimation was passed on to the complainant prior to 21.6.2014 .This being the setting event of cause of action the complaint doesn’t suffer from limitation. As said earlier the entire event took place within the territorial limit of this forum and O.P.1 has his office at Deogarh it is very well established that the complaint is not barred by jurisdiction.

Having analyzed the grounds challenged by the O.ps we are of opinion that the instant case is a fit case to be adjudicated and shall be prejudiced if fallen to the scaffold of O.Ps .It is well settled in law that Section 21 of the Sales of goods act to which reads as “it is depicted that specific goods to be put in to a deliverable state: - Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods and the seller is bound to do something to the goods for the purpose of putting them into a deliverable state, the property does not pass until such thing is done and the buyer has notice thereof. The section is merit mentioned as consumer protection law is in addition to other law and not in derogation of other statute. In the instant case on hand admittedly there was arrear of tax and the necessary papers like affidavits and vehicle transfer forms are not handed over to the petitioner even he is languishing since after the auction purchase although he entered into the auction bid on good faith . We consider that the suppression of facts even after the auction sale, the conduct of the OPs are themselves sufficient to hold that the petitioner is sufferer in deficiency in service caused by the Opp.Parties.  

Section 50 of the M.V. Act .1988 reads as here under” in the case of a vehicle registered within the same state within fourteen days of transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall simultaneously send a copy of the said report to the transferee “.

Under Rule 20 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Rules 1993, which reads as hereunder:

Rule :20 Transfer of ownership : (1) intimation of transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 50 shall be made by the transferee in form 30 prescribed under Rule 55 of the central Motor vehicle Rule 1989 .

(2) The application shall be accompanied with a fee as specified in Rule 81 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.

(3) Communication of transfer to the original registering authority under Sub-section (7) of Section 5 shall be made in form 1.

Rule: 21: Intimation in respect of vehicle not registered within the state –(1) When any motor vehicle which is not registered in Odisha has been kept within Odisha for a period exceeding thirty days , the owner or other person in charge of the vehicle shall send intimation to the registering authority of the area in which the motor vehicle is at the time of making the report and shall intimate.

1. His name and permanent address , and his address of the time being ;
2. The registration mark of the vehicle 
3. The make and description of the vehicle and

O.P.No.1 has failed to established that he has complied subsection 1 of Section 50 by way of filling from 13 prescribed under 55 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, Hence, it is observed that O.P.1 cannot drus off his hands by simply making and request to R.T.O, Sambalpur and Deogarh. So there is deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.

 

 

                                          ORDER

    Under  above premises I hereby direct the Opp.Parties jointly and severally to handover R.C. Books and other necessary documents free from any encumbrance to the complainant within 45 (forty-five) days of receipt of this order ,they are further directed to pay the complainant Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and pain and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 (forty five) days of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps are liable to pay an interest of 12% per annum to the petition in it is realized in the due process of law .

             Office is directed to supply free copy of order to the parties free of cost receiving acknowledgement thereof.

    Order is pronounced the open court today i.e. on 5^th day of May, 2016 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

 

I     agree,

 

MEMBER.                                                        MEMBER.

                       Dictated and Corrected

                                By me.

 

                              MEMBER.