aKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL  NO: 459/2010

JUDGMENT DATED:23-06-2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU              :  PRESIDENT

Regional Transport Officer,

Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.                                 : APPELLANT

(By Adv:Sri.S.Vijayakumaran)

          Vs.

K.Shambhu,

Kannamma Nilayam,                                           : RESPONDENT

T.C.27/1002, Vanchiyoor.P.O,

Thiruvananthapuram-35.

(By Adv:Sri.Unniraja)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

Appellant is the opposite party/Regional Transport Officer in CC.159/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram.  The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as cost and with interest at 9% if the amount is not paid within one month.

  2.    The case of the complainant is that he owned an autorikshaw having city permit and filed a joint application with one Ayyappan for transfer of  ownership and permit on 31/1/2008 and remitted Rs.250/- towards fee.  A number of times the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and was asked to come again and again.  All the papers relating to the autorikshaw was submitted.  The officials also directed the complainant to remit Rs.500/- towards compounding fee. Subsequently the records were returned on 4/6/2008 on request.  The vehicle was to be kept idle till 4/1/2008.  Deficiency in service is alleged.   A sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is claimed.

3.      The opposite party has admitted the receipt of joint application for transfer of permit and ownership and remittal Rs.350/- on 31/1/2008.  At the personal hearing on 10/4/2008.  It was stated that the vehicle was sold and delivered two months ago to Sri.Ayyappan.  As per Sec.82 (2) of the MV Act the permit shall not be transferred except with the permission of the transferring authority that granted the permit.  It was in the above circumstances a detailed enquirywas made through the AMVI as to the genuineness of the transaction.  The AMVI has reported that the address of the purchaser recorded in the application is not genuine and it was revealed that in TC.29/994, Kulathinkara Veedu, Palkulangara, Thiruvananthapuram is mentioned as the purchasers address in the application for transfer of permit it was the family of the deceased Mohandas residing for the last 3 years.  In the meantime, the complainant applied to cancel the sale agreement and return of the records.  Rs.500/- was collected a compounding fee for violation of permit conditions.  There is no deficiency in service.

4.      The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P8 and Exts.D1 to D6.

5.      We find that the complainant/seller has been examined as PW1.  The intending transferee, Mr.Ayyappan was not examined.  Ext.D2 is the inspection report of the AMVI wherein it is mentioned that the addressof Mr.Ayyappan is false.  As per Sec.49 of the MV Act, the change of address has to be incorporated and the same is to be verified or documents produced to substantiate the change of address.  We find that Ext.D2 inspection report of AMVI stands not contradicted.  The transferee has not testified.  No document has been produced to show that the address of the transferee made in Ext.D1 joint application is the correct address.  In the circumstances we find that the complainant could not establish deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the finding of the Forum is set aside and the appeal is allowed.

Office will forward the LCR along with a copy of this order to the Forum.

JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:  PRESIDENT

VL.