BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 77/2006 Filed on 10/03/2006 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainant:
Ramesan Asari. S., Cherukonathu Veedu, Pothencode, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 584.
Opposite party:
Jt. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Pazhakutty, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram. This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10..06..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on 3/10/2005 complainant had remitted Rs.2,000/- to R.T.O., Nedumangadu vide receipt No. 002489, that the Vehicle Inspector concerned had inspected the vehicle (Hero Honda Motor cycle) on the same day itself and given Registration No. as KL 16C 0014, that thereafter on several occasions complainant had approached the opposite party to receive RC book, but opposite party did not deliver the same to the complainant, and that on 12/12/2005 complainant had sent a letter to the opposite party for which opposite party had not sent any reply. Thereafter on enquiry of the opposite party's office, complainant was informed that opposite party could not issue RC book for want of hypothecation in Form 20. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to issue RC book along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Opposite party filed reply contending that the dealer delivered the vehicle to the complainant with a temporary registration with No.KL-01/E/Temp/8531 valid from 27/9/2005 to 3/10/2005, that complainant approached opposite party's office for remittance of Road Tax on 3/10/2005 and remitted the same from 27/9/2005 (date of delivery) to 30/6/2000 as one time tax vide TL.No.002489 amounting Rs.2,000/-, that complainant also remitted Rs.60/- vide TR5 receipt No.3/287/05 dated 3/10/2005 as fee for registration, and that the papers produced for inspection were not at all in order. Since the temporary registration was only valid upto 3/10/2005 the Motor Vehicle Inspector had taken a lenient view and inspected the vehicle in compliance of requirements of Motor Vehicle Act with direction to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and sealed by the financier, the District Manager, KSBCDC Ltd since they are given finance for the purchase of the vehicle. After the inspection, the Inspecting Officer submitted the papers at the office giving registration as KL-16/C 14 and issued an acknowledgement also. If the Inspecting Officer refused to inspect the vehicle on the reason of requirements of proper application, the complainant ought to pay any additional amount of Rs.500/- being compounding fee to inspect the vehicle in another date due to expiry of temporary registration. Registration certificate was prepared at opposite party's office. Complainant was given direction from opposite party's office vide letter No.R1/KL-16/C 14/IDD/05 dated 30/11/2005 to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21 in a week, since the address proof attached in the application differs when compared with the address in the sale letter. The complainant had not complied the above direction so far. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get RC book? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. Opposite party did not file affidavit, but furnished five documents, marked as Exts.D1 to D5.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, the Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 3/10/2005 and gave Registration No.KL-16/C 14. Ext. P1 is the copy of the acknowledgement card issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nedumangad dated 3/10/2005, wherein the new registration number mentioned is KL 16 C 0014. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Form D1 showing the payment of Road Tax of Rs.2,000/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter dated 12/2/2005 addressed to R.T.O. As per Ext.P3, it is evident that complainant was aware of the formalities of registration as intimated by the opposite party, when complainant contacted the opposite party for RC book on 26/11/2005. Evenafter the intimation by the opposite party, complainant did not attempt to cure the defects in the application for registration. Ext.D1 is the copy of the Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 27/9/2005. As per Ext.D1 the temporary registration is valid from 27/9/2005 to 3/10/2005. Ext.D2 is the copy of Form 21 sale certificate issued by Cheran Automobiles. As per Ext. D2 the Motor Cycle (Hero Honda) is held under agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease Hypothecation with District Manager, KSBCDC, Ext.D3 is the copy of Form 20, the form of application for Registration of Motor Vehicle. As per Ext.D3, if the vehicle is subject to any agreement of the hire purchase/lease/agreement, subject to hypothecation, the signature of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into is to be obtained. On a perusal of Ext. D3 Form 20, it is seen that the said Form is not duly signed and stamped by the financier. Ext.D4 is the copy of the identity card of the complainant, wherein the address mentioned is 390, Cherukonath Veedu, Theeppukal, Vembayam, while in Form 21 (Ext.D2), the address mentioned in Cherukonath Veedu, Pothencode – P.O. In the version opposite party has stated that the complainant was given a direction from opposite party's office vide letter No.R1/KL-16/C 14 IDD/05 dated 30/11/2005 to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21. As per Ext. P3 dated 12/12/2005, complainant is seen aware of the direction given by the opposite party. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of evidence available on record, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not issuing the RC book, since complainant has not complied the direction issued by the opposite party.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21, to opposite party and opposite party shall issue RC book to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. There will be no order as to compensation. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.77/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of acknowledgment receipt dated 3/10/2005 of Reg.No.KL-16C-0014 P2 : Copy of license granted under Section 4(B) (a)of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976. P3 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 12/12/2005 issued to the opp. Party.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of temporary certificate of Registration dated 27/9/2005. D2 : Copy of sale certificate (Form 21) dated 27/9/2005.
D3 : Copy of Form of application for Registration of Motor Vehicle (Form 20) dated 3/10/05.
D4 : Copy of Identity card No.KL/19/132/570208
D5 : Copy of Initial certificate of Fitness (Form 22)
PRESIDENT
ad.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 77/2006 Filed on 10/03/2006 Dated: 30..06..2009
Complainant:
Ramesan Asari. S., Cherukonathu Veedu, Pothencode, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 584.
Opposite party:
Jt. Regional Transport Officer, Regional Transport Office, Pazhakutty, Nedumangadu, Thiruvananthapuram. This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10..06..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 30..05..2009, the Forum on 30..06..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT: The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that on 3/10/2005 complainant had remitted Rs.2,000/- to R.T.O., Nedumangadu vide receipt No. 002489, that the Vehicle Inspector concerned had inspected the vehicle (Hero Honda Motor cycle) on the same day itself and given Registration No. as KL 16C 0014, that thereafter on several occasions complainant had approached the opposite party to receive RC book, but opposite party did not deliver the same to the complainant, and that on 12/12/2005 complainant had sent a letter to the opposite party for which opposite party had not sent any reply. Thereafter on enquiry of the opposite party's office, complainant was informed that opposite party could not issue RC book for want of hypothecation in Form 20. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to issue RC book along with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 2. Opposite party filed reply contending that the dealer delivered the vehicle to the complainant with a temporary registration with No.KL-01/E/Temp/8531 valid from 27/9/2005 to 3/10/2005, that complainant approached opposite party's office for remittance of Road Tax on 3/10/2005 and remitted the same from 27/9/2005 (date of delivery) to 30/6/2000 as one time tax vide TL.No.002489 amounting Rs.2,000/-, that complainant also remitted Rs.60/- vide TR5 receipt No.3/287/05 dated 3/10/2005 as fee for registration, and that the papers produced for inspection were not at all in order. Since the temporary registration was only valid upto 3/10/2005 the Motor Vehicle Inspector had taken a lenient view and inspected the vehicle in compliance of requirements of Motor Vehicle Act with direction to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and sealed by the financier, the District Manager, KSBCDC Ltd since they are given finance for the purchase of the vehicle. After the inspection, the Inspecting Officer submitted the papers at the office giving registration as KL-16/C 14 and issued an acknowledgement also. If the Inspecting Officer refused to inspect the vehicle on the reason of requirements of proper application, the complainant ought to pay any additional amount of Rs.500/- being compounding fee to inspect the vehicle in another date due to expiry of temporary registration. Registration certificate was prepared at opposite party's office. Complainant was given direction from opposite party's office vide letter No.R1/KL-16/C 14/IDD/05 dated 30/11/2005 to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21 in a week, since the address proof attached in the application differs when compared with the address in the sale letter. The complainant had not complied the above direction so far. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the complainant is entitled to get RC book? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? Whether complainant is entitled to get compensation?
4. In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. Opposite party did not file affidavit, but furnished five documents, marked as Exts.D1 to D5.
5. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, the Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 3/10/2005 and gave Registration No.KL-16/C 14. Ext. P1 is the copy of the acknowledgement card issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Nedumangad dated 3/10/2005, wherein the new registration number mentioned is KL 16 C 0014. Ext.P2 is the copy of the Form D1 showing the payment of Road Tax of Rs.2,000/-. Ext.P3 is the copy of the letter dated 12/2/2005 addressed to R.T.O. As per Ext.P3, it is evident that complainant was aware of the formalities of registration as intimated by the opposite party, when complainant contacted the opposite party for RC book on 26/11/2005. Evenafter the intimation by the opposite party, complainant did not attempt to cure the defects in the application for registration. Ext.D1 is the copy of the Temporary Certificate of Registration dated 27/9/2005. As per Ext.D1 the temporary registration is valid from 27/9/2005 to 3/10/2005. Ext.D2 is the copy of Form 21 sale certificate issued by Cheran Automobiles. As per Ext. D2 the Motor Cycle (Hero Honda) is held under agreement of Hire Purchase/Lease Hypothecation with District Manager, KSBCDC, Ext.D3 is the copy of Form 20, the form of application for Registration of Motor Vehicle. As per Ext.D3, if the vehicle is subject to any agreement of the hire purchase/lease/agreement, subject to hypothecation, the signature of the person with whom such agreement has been entered into is to be obtained. On a perusal of Ext. D3 Form 20, it is seen that the said Form is not duly signed and stamped by the financier. Ext.D4 is the copy of the identity card of the complainant, wherein the address mentioned is 390, Cherukonath Veedu, Theeppukal, Vembayam, while in Form 21 (Ext.D2), the address mentioned in Cherukonath Veedu, Pothencode – P.O. In the version opposite party has stated that the complainant was given a direction from opposite party's office vide letter No.R1/KL-16/C 14 IDD/05 dated 30/11/2005 to produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21. As per Ext. P3 dated 12/12/2005, complainant is seen aware of the direction given by the opposite party. In view of the foregoing discussion and in the light of evidence available on record, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not issuing the RC book, since complainant has not complied the direction issued by the opposite party.
In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Complainant shall produce Form 20 in duplicate duly signed and stamped by the financier along with attested proof of address matching the address in Form 21, to opposite party and opposite party shall issue RC book to complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the same. There will be no order as to compensation. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 30th day of June, 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER ad. O.P.No.77/2006 APPENDIX I. Complainant's witness : NIL II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Copy of acknowledgment receipt dated 3/10/2005 of Reg.No.KL-16C-0014 P2 : Copy of license granted under Section 4(B) (a)of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act 1976. P3 : Copy of Regd. Letter dated 12/12/2005 issued to the opp. Party.
III. Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of temporary certificate of Registration dated 27/9/2005. D2 : Copy of sale certificate (Form 21) dated 27/9/2005.
D3 : Copy of Form of application for Registration of Motor Vehicle (Form 20) dated 3/10/05.
D4 : Copy of Identity card No.KL/19/132/570208
D5 : Copy of Initial certificate of Fitness (Form 22)
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
