JUDGEMENT

                                      (As per Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Member)

           Brief facts:-

1. It is the case of the Complainant that she purchased a Maruti Swift car bearing registration number GA-03-C-1233 on 29^th September, 2006 by obtaining a loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the State Bank of Patiala, Mapusa- Goa, and the said car was duly hypothecated to the said Bank, as a security for the re-payment of loan obtained by her.

2. That after having purchased the said car from Opposite Party, Chowgule Industries Ltd, Campal, Panaji, she noticed that there were dents on the outer body of the said vehicle and also the paint of the said car had been peeled off. She immediately approached the said showroom inorder to exchange the said car as the said car had some defects which were evident on the outer body of the car. The Opposite Party agreed for replacement and also arranged the same model car to the Complainant and assured to register the said car with RTO, Mapusa within a period of one week by putting the same number plate bearing No. GA-03-C-1233 of the old car.

3. That when the Complainant visited Opposite Party after 15 days they came up with lame excuses and even after another visit to Opposite Party they didn’t bother to do so. Till date the said car has not been registered before the RTO, Mapusa.

4. That the Complainant learnt from some reliable sources that the old car which was returned to Opposite Party was already sold to one Mr. Orson Menezes from Kumbharjua, Tiswadi and after inquiry with R.T.O., Mapusa the Complainant found that the said old Maruti Swift car stands registered by a new registration bearing no. GA-07-C-1114 in the name of Mr. Orson Menezes.

5. The Complainant further states that the Opposite Party and Directorate of Transport had committed a fraud upon thereby cancelling the registration bearing no. GA-03-C-1233 of the old Maruti Swift car which was originally purchased by her but was returned to Opposite Party for an exchange of new car. She further stated that the Opposite Party and Director of Transport have cheated him and malafidely and surreptiously sold the said old car to 3^rd person without following the due process of law. It was the duty of Directorate of Transport to ensure that once the vehicle has been registered the same cannot be re-registered with different registration number.

6. The Complainant states that she is unnecessarily harassed by Opposite Party by not registering her new car which is till date lying without any use to her.

7. The Opposite Party in their defence filed their written version and stated that they replaced the car with similar car to the Complainant but denied that they assured to register the new car with R.T.O. The new car needs to be duly registered with R.T.O. separately and the old number plate cannot be put on a new car.

8. Further the Opposite Party submitted that the service of registration of car is provided by the Opposite Party after charging certain fees. The customer is at liberty to opt for any other service provider who will help him to register the vehicle with R.T.O. If he entrusts this job to Opposite Party, the Opposite Party carries out the same by charging service charges. But if customer is not ready to pay and bear these charges, the Opposite Party does not provide their services for this purpose. The Complainant was not ready to pay the service charges to the Opposite Party for registration of new vehicle. Even if she had paid it for first vehicle, all activities needs to be performed by the Opposite Party again while registration of new vehicle and she must pay the registration fees again.

9. They denied that they have committed any fraud. The fresh vehicle was to be registered by the Complainant on her own as she was not ready to avail the services of Opposite Party for registration of fresh vehicle. She was in the possession of vehicle from 2006 and utilized the same after purchase under section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988, onus of registration of newly purchased vehicle is on the owner and not on the seller. The dealer is not responsible for registration of vehicle. Further, the Complainant made allegations against Directorate of Transport but failed to make him a party in these proceedings.

10. Perused the Complaint, the documents, affidavit in evidence, Written arguments, Adv. D. Govekar argued on behalf of Complainant and Adv. H. D. Naik argued on behalf of Opposite Party.

11. On perusal of the records and considering the oral arguments it is observed that the Complainant had purchased a Maruti Swift car and registered with RTO, but being defective, the said car was exchanged with the same model. According to the Complainant the Opposite Party assured her that they will register the said new car with R.T.O., but failed to do so till date and so the Complainant approached before this Forum.

12.  That the Complainant waited for registration of the car for more than 7 years shows her irresponsible behavior. As per sec. 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no person can drive the vehicle in public without registration of vehicle. The duty of the seller is only to provide sale invoice and sell letter to the purchase and it is not the duty of the dealer to register the vehicle.

13.  That the Complainant had purchased the car in 2006. Secondly, the Complainant has no grievance against the car or service provided by Opposite Party nor produced any evidence to show that there is any deficiency in service by Opposite Party. She is plying the vehicle for more than 7 years. Even assuming for a while that Opposite Party has to register the vehicle and afterward denies to register the same the question arises why the Complainant waited for 7 years without registering the vehicle? Why the Complainant herself not registered the vehicle inspite of making allegations towards Opposite Party and Directorate of Transport ? sec 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 clearly casts the duty on the owner to register the vehicle. How the Complainant after 7 years come before this court asking for compensation? after remaining silent for 7 years, she thinks that she is mentally harassed and tortured by the Opposite Party. plying the vehicle without registration is against the rules of R.T.O. This shows the malafide intention of the Complainant. The Complaint is instituted with the malafide intentions and to make unlawful gains and to harass the Opposite Party. The Complaint is clearly barred by limitation and there is no cause of action. Even if the Complainant had any grievance against the Opposite Party she ought to have filed the complaint within 2 years from the date of purchase of vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The present complaint is false and frivolous.

In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, we pass the following.

O R D E R

The Complaint is dismissed with no order to costs.

Pronounced in open court. Proceedings closed.