Date of filing:15.10.2020

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:18.04.2024

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 18^th DAY OF APRIL 2024

PRESENT

Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Mrs.M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 713/2020

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP2 in CC/469/2018 on the file of DCDRF, Mysuru, aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2020.

(The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Forum)

2. The Brief facts of the case of the complainant would be:

He had purchased new car manufactured by Hundai Motor India Ltd., on 11.07.2018 from OP1.He has paid necessary charges for registration of the vehicle from the concerned department.At the time of registration of the vehicle, OP2 has issued temporary registration certificate valid up to 09.08.2018 and it was informed that permanent registration number of the vehicle will be delivered through post.He has waited up to 09.08.2018 and on 10.08.2018 and in the mean time the police have checked and asked him for registration certificate of the car.The Police did not believe his words and threatened to seize the vehicle.In order to overcome from the seizure of the vehicle had spent Rs.5,000/-.OP2 admitted that the complainant has signed relevant forms on 26.07.2018 and after due inspection of the vehicle registered with No.KA-09-MD-8563.The complainant had given self addressed pre-stamped cover to their office to send R.C. Smart card.Accordingly, OP2 has sent the R.C. Smart card by speed post.OP1 denied that he has deliberately and voluntarily failed to give service to the complainant in connivance of OP Nos.2 and 3. OP3 has stated that the speed post was delivered on 21.08.2018 to Ramakrishna S/o Thammegowda of Kolur Village.In view of rival contentions of the respective parties, the District Forum held an enquiry and proceed to allow the complaint in part and directed OP2 to issue the R.C. Smart Card to the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing No.KA-09-MD-8563 within 30 days from the date of order failing which to pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day till compliance and directed OP1 shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- and OP2 shall pay Rs.55,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost within 30 days failing which such amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till payment. It is this order being assailed in this appeal by OP2 contending that the District Forum failed to peruse the original records and delivered postal receipts produced by OP3.The District Forum committed an error in appreciating materials on record without noticing OP2/RTO has sent R.C. registered certified smart card on 20.08.2018 through speed post and the said post is been delivered on 21.08.2018 as per the postal endorsement made at Chunchanakatte Sub-Post Office, K.R.Nagar Taluk which is self-addressed pre-stamped furnished by OP1 at the time of registration of the vehicle.The impugned order is contrary to facts and law and is liable to be set aside.

3. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.  Now the points that   arise for consideration of this Commission would be whether impugned order dated 13.02.2020 passed in CC/469/2018 does call for an interference for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. At the very outset, it is appropriate to make mention of the fact that complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from OP1 on 11.07.2018.  It is not in dispute that OP2 has issued temporary registration certificate in the name of complainant which is valid up to 09.08.2018.  In other words, for 30 days from the date of purchase.  According to the complainant, OP2 has failed to issue permanent registration certificate and R.C. Smart Card before expiry of temporary registration certificate.  It was his case that he waited till 09.08.2018 and on 10.08.2018 he was asked by police for registration certificate of the car. However, the enquiry reveals that the vehicle purchased by the complainant was registered by OP2 with No.KA-09-MD-8563.  In our view, this would be the crux of the matter which we could not find in the impugned order.  According to OP1 and OP2, form No.20 and 22 having been signed by complainant were furnished by complainant and the vehicle was registered on the basis of such documents and the R.C.Smart Card was sent to the addressee which was supplied with complainant with pre-stamped cover.  However, complainant would submit that it was sent to one Mr.Ramakrishna S/o Tammegowda of Kolur Village and not to the address of Ramakrishna.K.T. S/o Thammaiah K.B. of Kaggalu Grama, K.R.Nagara Taluk, Mysuru.  It is therefore, in our view dispute needs to be re-examined afresh affording opportunity to both parties to place materials on record and in such conclusion proceed to hold  impugned order does call for an interference for the grounds set out in the appeal memo.  Accordingly,  order to allow the appeal.  Consequently, set aside the order dated 13.02.2020 passed in CC/469/2018 on the file of DCDRF, Mysuru with a direction to re-admit the complaint and afford opportunity to both the parties to place additional materials on record and decide the case as early as possible not later than 03 months from the date of receipt of the order.  All the contentions are kept open.

5. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Forum for needful.

6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                  Judicial Member             

*GGH*