By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

 The complaint in short is follows: -

1.   The complainant purchased a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle with chassis No. ME3U3S5C1KL556165 on 18/11/20219.  The complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for obtaining registration No. KL-65/P-4000 to the vehicle.  The complainant learned that there was more than one applicant for the said number and so Motor Vehicle Department placed the above number for auction. Accordingly, the complainant submitted an application KL-19111835209379 for participating in the auction for the registration number. The complainant participated in the auction process on 16/12/2019. There was a bidder for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- when there was 2 minutes left for the finishing time. The complainant was prepared to bid the said number for Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant applied for the same through online.  At that time there was 1.41- minute time to finish the auction schedule but the message appeared on the site that “Time is over You can not increment for this number”.  The auction was confirmed for Rs. 20,000/- and the application of complainant to bid the number for Rs. 25,000/- was cancelled.   The complainant submitted that it is usual to grant additional time of 5 minutes when there is a balance time of two minutes for finishing the auction time. 

2.     The complainant alleges external interference in the process or defect to the site of the Motor Vehicle Department.  The complainant submitted that, he lost his passionate number and also lost valuable time.  He submitted that due to the act of opposite parties he suffered a lot of inconvenience, hardship and mental agony. The complainant approached the opposite party through a complaint on 17/12/2019 in the matter, but there was no proper response from the side of the opposite parties.  The complainant alleges deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. The complainant alleged due to non-availability of the said number the temporary registration period was expired and thereby he was caused to pay Rs. 3,300/-as fine. Hence, the complainant prays for Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service from the side of opposite parties and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.  The complainant prayed for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- towards the penalty remitted by the complainant and Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. 

3.     On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the first and second opposite parties, but the second opposite party did not appear and so set exparte.  The second opposite party entered appearance and filed version.  The second opposite party submitted that there is defect of non-joinder of necessary party in the complaint and accordingly supplemental third and fourth opposite parties impleaded in the complaint.   Notice to the third and fourth opposite parties duly served, but they did not file version.

4.        The first opposite party submitted that the service of the first opposite party was available to the public through the smart move software and the said software was transformed in to centralised new software vahan-4 from 01/04/2019.   The Fancy number booking and other allied services are available through the new software vahan-4.

5.       The Motor Transport Commissioner has issued a circular narrating proceeding with respect to registration of the vehicle and the auction through a circular dated 21/03/2019 with circular number 03/2019. The entire process for registration of the vehicle number and the auction process are being carried out through the software using by ID and password and so the opposite party is not aware of the mistakes crept in the process. The opposite party have no role in providing registration number to the vehicle and also in the auction process.  All the transactions are through the online and so the opposite party is not able to redress the complaint of the complainant.  But it is submitted that there is record of auction process held on 16/12/2019 and also there is details of vehicle no. KL-65/P-4000 and the said number is assigned to Mr. Shafeeque Chemban for Rs. 20,000/- and the bidding time also isnoted.  The opposite party also submitted that they have produced the copy of the relevant circular issued by the Transport Commissioner. 

6.    The first opposite party submitted that while the complainant approached  the opposite  on 17/12/2019 in person,  he was  duly informed  all the  details of the  process  and  stated to him  the process is fully under automated system. It is further submitted that the complainant had availed temporary registration for his vehicle and which was valid up to one month, but he did not turn up for the registration of the vehicle within the stipulated period of 30 days and thereby he was fined of Rs. 3,300/- for which the first opposite party is not at all responsible. 

7.    Thereafter the complainant booked for another registration number on 23/12/2019 and he was allowed registration No. KL-65/P-4400.  The complainant approached the opposite party and the permanent registration number was assigned to him on 08/01/2020. The registration certificate was issued on 16/02/2019 through the Post office.  The complainant is entitled the deposit amount towards the registration no. KL-65/P-4000 on submitting proper application through online. 

8.      Hence the submission of the opposite party is that they are not liable for the alleged mental agony and financial loss sustained by the complainant. The first opposite party is not authorised to allow the registration number in favour of the complainant. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party.

9.     The opposite parties No.2, 3 and 4 did not file version. The fourth opposite party filed a petition on 12/09/2023 i.e highly belated period contending the complaint is not maintainable against the fourth opposite party, since he was served notice only on 03/04/2023 as per order in   IA 53/2023 dated 27/01/2023 and the complainant appeared and purchased the vehicle on 18/11/2019. Hence the contention is that the opposite party impleaded and served notice after the limitation period and so the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. Even though the fourth opposite party did not file the version we have gone through the issue regarding maintainability of the complaint against the fourth opposite party.  It appears the complainant filed this complaint on 28/01/2020 and the complainant purchased the vehicle on 18/11/2019 and so there is no delay in filing this complaint.  Only after filing the version and raising the contention of non-jointer of necessary party by first opposite party, the complainant impleaded the third and fourth opposite party   in the complaint.  So, there is no lapse or delay from the side of complainant in filing this complaint and impleading the opposite parties No. 3 and 4.    There is no merit in the contention of 4^th opposite party in IA 705/2023.

10.     The complainant submitted affidavit and documents to prove his case.  The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A3.  Ext. A1 is copy of tax receipt issued by Motor Vehicle Department dated 18/11/2019 for Rs. 15,008/-.  Ext. A2 is a copy of printout from the site of Ministry of Road Transport Highway, Government of India, auction process for the registration mark KL-65/P-4000 for Rs. 20,000/-.  Ext. A3 is copy of complaint submitted by the complainant before the Joint RTO, Thirurangadi dated 17/12/2019. 

11.      The first opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents marked as Ext. B1 and B2.  Ext. B1 is copy of circular No. 3/2019 dated 21/03/2019 issued by Transport Commissionerate, Kerala. Ext. B2 is Copy of Auction show final result from website.

12.     Heard complaint and the first opposite party. The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether there is deficiency in service.
2. Reliefs and cost.

13.Point No.1 and 2

        The case of the complainant is that, he purchased a Royal Enfield Motor Cycle and for getting a passionate number KL-65/P-4000, he applied for the same by remitting Rs. 5,000/-.  But there was being more than one person for the particular number, the number was put for auction and so he applied for participating the auction process as per application number KL-19111 83 5209379.  He participated in the auction process on 16/12/2019 and the auction process was closed while there was remaining few minutes.  The complainant applied for the number remitting Rs. 25,000/-, but the site reflected that “time is over you can not increment for this number”.  The specific case of the complainant is that at the relevant time there was remaining 1.41 minutes.  The complainant produced Ext. A2 to show the response in the site at the relevant time. The document reveals that there is remaining time of 1.41 minutes.    It is also revealing the response “time is over you can not increment for this number”. The perusal of Ext.A2 substantiates the contention of the complainant. The first opposite party entered appearance and duly filed version and affidavit. The first opposite party produced relevant circular of the Transport Commissioner dated 21/03/2019 regarding the auction process. The submission of the first opposite party is that they do not have any control of the process in allotting registration number.  Hence the first opposite party is not at all liable for any grievance sustained by the complainant. According to the first opposite party the entire control over the system is with National Informatics Centre, the fourth opposite party.  But the fourth opposite party remained exparte despite service of due notice from this Commission.  Hence there is no explanation from the side of National Informatics Centre for the alleged defective service against the complainant. 

14.    The Commission finds that the complainant could establish there is defective service from the side of fourth opposite party in the matter of allotting registration number in favour of the complainant.   It appears the complainant was very font of the number KL-65/P-4000 and so he was prepared to bid the number for Rs. 25,000/.  Subsequently he availed as stated by the first opposite party a registration number of KL-65/P-4400, which is very similar to the disputed number KL-65/P-4000. It can be seen that the complainant lost his passionate number and the state exchequer lost at least 5000/- rupees.  We find the service of the fourth opposite party was defective one and for that the fourth opposite party is responsible to compensate the complainant as prayed in the complaint.   The complainant submitted that he is entitled compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 18,000/- as cost and other expenses.  But there is no sufficient document to prove his loss as stated in the complaint and affidavit. So, the Commission consider Rs. 25,000/- as reasonable amount of compensation on account of defective service from the side of fourth opposite party and thereby caused mental agony, inconveniences, and hardship to the complainant.  The complainant also entitled Rs.5000/-as cost of the proceedings.

15.      In the light of above facts and circumstances, we allow this complaint as follows: -

1. The fourth opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five Thousand only) as compensation on account of defective service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
2. The fourth opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

        The fourth opposite party is directed to comply this order within one month, from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the fourth opposite party is liable to pay the interest @ 12% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of complaint to till the date of payment. 

Dated this 30^th day of November, 2023.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                     : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                   : Ext.A1to A3

Ext. A1 : Copy of tax receipt issued by Motor Vehicle Department dated 18/11/2019

               for Rs. 15,008/-. 

Ext. A2 : Printout  from the  site of  Ministry of Road Transport Highway Government

               of India, auction process for the registration mark KL-65/P-4000 for Rs.

               20,000/-. 

Ext. A3 : Copy of complaint submitted by the complainant before the Joint RTO,

               Thirurangadi dated 17/12/2019. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                    : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                  : Ext. B1 & B2

Ext. B1: Copy of Circular No. 3/2019 dated 21/03/2019  issued by Transport

               Commissionerate, Kerala.

Ext. B2:  Copy of Auction show final result.

MOHANDASAN K., PRESIDENT

PREETHI SIVARAMAN C., MEMBER

MOHAMED ISMAYIL C.V., MEMBER