DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.  49 of 2016                                          Date of institution:  10.03.2016                                         Date of decision   :  17.10.2017

Vishal Dhingra son of Ravinder Singh resident of # 1236, Phase-5, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                             ……..Complainant

                                        Versus

District Transport Officer, Phase-1, Mohali.

                                                       ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Sections 12  to 14  

Of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President 

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Complainant in person.

                Shri Nasib Chand, Jr. Assistant for the OP.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

                Complainant Vishal Dhingra has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.             The  complainant  after enquiring from the OP on 06.11.2015 for taking No.1236 for his vehicle, booked No.PB-65-AF-1236 for his vehicle by online payment of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant purchased Honda City Car on 08.11.2015 from Joshi Automotives Pvt. Ltd. By paying Rs.10,72,301/-. After completing his file for registration of the vehicle, the complainant approached the OP on 03.12.2015 but the officials of the OP informed the complainant that the number booked by him was allotted inadvertently to some other person and the number allotted to the complainant can be given in the next series which will take 4 months. On 03.12.2015 the OP refused to receive the file and allot the number 1236 of the next series. Having no other option the complainant got prepared the fresh file and applied for registration and was allotted registration No.7193 on 22.01.2016 with late fee of Rs.50/-. The complainant requested the OP to refund the amount received by it for taking number of his choice but the officials of the OP refused to the refund the amount received by them without assigning any reason.  In view provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and conditions of the insurance the complainant could not drive the vehicle after expiry of temporary registration number which expired on 07.12.2015. The complainant requested the OP to renew the temporary registration certificate for four months and for that the complainant was ready to pay the requisite charges but the OP refused to renew the same. The complainant could not drive the vehicle from 07.12.2015 to 22.01.2016 to the callous attitude of the OP.  Even in the RC issued by the OP the word ‘I’ was missing from the name of the complainant printed on the RC and the date of expiry of RC was not visible. The officials of the OP informed the complainant that the RC cannot be rectified and the complainant has to apply for duplicate RC after getting the formalities completed alongwith requisite fee.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP by allotting the number booked by him in the name of someone else, the complainant has sought direction to the OP to refund him Rs.5,000/- received by it, to rectify the name of the complainant in the RC and make expiry date of RC visible or issue fresh RC alongwith requisite amendments; to pay him Rs.3.00 lakhs for mental tension and harassment and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             The complaint has been contested by the OP by filing written statement in which it has taken preliminary objections that two different series of registration of vehicles run concurrently in each district of the State which are called online (PB65AF) and offline (PB65AD).  While the registration number from the online series is allotted by the authorized automobile dealers-cum-special registering authorities and the registration number from the offline series are allotted by the officers of the District Transport Officers in the State. The complainant desired to get registration No.PB76-AF 1236 but this series was running online which was not in the control of the OP because at that time the OP was running the series PB-65-AD. The series being run the OP had gone upto PB 65AD 3161. The series PB 65 AF allotted to the Dealer/Special Registration Officer was directly controlled by the Office of the State Transport Commissioner and the OP has only viewing rights in these online series but does not have any kind of interference/operational rights in these series.  By 06.11.2015 the OP had allotted registration No.PB65-AD 3161. The Registration No.1236 in PB65AF series in which the complainant desired to get his vehicle registered, was not under the control of the OP. On merits, the OP has pleaded that the complainant has deposited Rs.5,000/- for registration No.PB-65-AF 1236 for which the OP has no responsibility.  As per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act the temporary number expires after one month and the vehicle owner is legally bound to get registered his vehicle within one month.  The vehicle of the complainant has been assigned the registration No.PB65-AD-7193 on 12.02.2016.  The complainant did not approach the OP for any clerical mistake in the RC and if there is any mistake the OP is ready to make corrections in the RC.  Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.

4.             In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of receipt Ex.C-1; retail invoice Ex.C-2; receipt Ex.C-3; RC Ex.C-4; temporary certificate of registration Ex.C-5 and sale certificate Ex.C-6.  In rebuttal, the evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Shri Jagdish Singh Johal, DTO Ex.OP-1/1.  

5.             The complainant has submitted that inspite of making payment of Rs.5,000/- online the OP has not allotted him registration No.PB065-AF-1236. He has further submitted that the OP has not refunded him the amount despite requests and even in the RC issued for the vehicle having registration No.PB-65-AD-7193 there were some mistakes. He has also submitted that he purchased the vehicle on 08.11.2015 and the temporary number allotted by the dealer was valid upto 07.12.2015. The OP inspite of his requests did not renew the temporary number and in the absence of valid document, he could not drive the vehicle upto 22.01.2016.

6.             On the other hand the authorized representative of the OP has submitted that two series are run parallel one is online and the other is offline. He has submitted that the offline series is controlled by the OP and the online series is controlled by the Dealer/Special Registration Officer. The complainant was informed about this and then he submitted the file for registration of vehicle which was thereafter registered vide registration No.PB-AD-7193.  He has further submitted that if there is any clerical mistake in the registration certificate, the complainant can get the same rectified by depositing requisite fee.

7.             After hearing the complainant and authorized representative of the OP and going through the pleadings, evidence and the written argument of the complainant as well as oral submissions, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to rebut the plea of the OP with regard to the fact that two different series of registration of vehicles run concurrently in each district of the State which are called online (PB65AF) and offline (PB65AD).  The complainant has also failed to rebut the further plea of the OP that the registration number from the online series is allotted by the authorized automobile dealers-cum-special registering authorities and the registration number from the offline series are allotted by the officers of the District Transport Officers in the State. He has simply reproduced the averments made in the complaint in his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and not rebutted the pleas of the OP taken in its written statement.  Moreover, the complainant has got registered his vehicle with the OP vide registration No.PB-65-AD-7193 and the RC has duly been received by him.  With regard to plea of the complainant that the OP has not renewed the temporary number beyond 07.12.2015 and in the absence of valid document, he could not ply the vehicle is without any force. The temporary number CH-54(T) 5398 was allotted by the dealer which was valid upto 07.12.2015 as per provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. This number was not allotted by the OP. No liability can be fastened upon the OP if the temporary number has not been renewed as the temporary number is valid only for one month.   As regards the contention of the complainant that there are some clerical mistakes in the RC, the OP has specifically stated in the written statement as well as in the affidavit that the complainant can get the same rectified by payment of requisite fee.  Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

8.             Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of any merit.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 17.10.2017

                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member