KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.669/09
JUDGMENT DATED 9.9.2010
PRESENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
Philip.P.J,
PGT Economics,
Kendriya Vidyalaya No.1 -- APPELLANT
District Hospital P.O.Kannur 670 017.
Vs.
1. The General Manager,
Koyenco Autos P.Ltd.
West Hill P.O.Calicut.
2. Tata Motors Ltd. SHQ -- RESPONDENTS
Passenger Car Business Unit,
8th Floor, World Trade Centre – 1,
Tata Motors, Mumbai-5.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Civil Station, Calicut.
(R1 By Adv.P.G.Anoop Narayanan &
R2 by Adv.S.Reghukumar)
JUDGMENT
SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN.JUDICIAL MEMBER
Appellant was the complainant and respondents 1 to 3 were the opposite parties 1 to 3 respectively in the complaint in CC.125/07 on the file of CDRF, Kozhikode. The above complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing the registration certificate and the insurance policy with respect to the vehicle purchased by the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2. The complainant alleged that inspite of repeated requests, the opposite parties have not taken necessary steps to get the registration certificate and insurance policy issued to the complainant, the owner who purchased the said vehicle on 19.10.06. The original complaint was subsequently amended and thereby the complainant claimed a total of Rs.4,52,160/- as compensation.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 filed separate written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that they had nothing to do with the registration of the vehicle and issuance of the insurance policy. The registration of the vehicle and issuance of the registration certificate are the duty cast upon the third opposite party, Regional Transport Officer, Calicut. It is also contended that opposite parties 1 and 2 are unnecessary parties to the complaint in CC 125/07. Thus, they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The third opposite party entered appearance and requested for time to file written version. Subsequently, during the pendency of the complaint, the third opposite party handed over the registration certificate of the said vehicle in the name of the complainant and that the complainant accepted the same. Thus, the third opposite party did not file any version. But even after, the complainant proceeded with the complaint preferred against opposite parties 1 and 2, the dealer and manufacturer respectively of the vehicle Tata Indica Xeta GLS Car which was purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties 1 and 2.
4. Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the first opposite party, the Sales Manager of the first opposite party/dealer was examined asRW1. He had also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. The complainant had also filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. No evidence was adduced from the side of the opposite parties 2 and 3. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated 12th November 2009 dismissing the complaint in CC.125/07 on the ground that the complainant could not produce any proof to show that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant therein.
5. We heard the appellant/complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for respondents 1 and 2. There was no representation for the third respondent. No relief is also sought against the third respondent, the Regional Transport Officer, Calicut.
6. The appellant/complainant submitted his oral submissions based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He relied on A1 copy of the registered letter dated 5.12.06 issued to the General Manager of the first opposite party Koyenco Autos Private Ltd. Calicut with copy to the second opposite party Tata Motors Ltd. and argued for the position that the opposite parties neglected to take necessary steps for issuance of the registration certificate with respect to the vehicle and because of the absence of registration certificate, he could not ply the vehicle for about 18 months. It is further submitted that the insurance paper was also not given to the complainant, inspite of the repeated requests made by the complainant to the first opposite party. Thus, the appellant/complainant vehemently submitted about the mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss suffered by him on account of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 (respondents 1 and 2). He also relied on the testimony of RW1 and submitted that the evidence of RW1 is sufficient to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party, dealer of the vehicle. Therefore, the appellant/complainant prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below and to allow the complaint in CC.125/07. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 (opposite parties 1 and 2) supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below. They submitted that they had nothing to do with the registration of the vehicle or issuance of the registration certificate and that the complainant neglected to approach the third opposite party/Regional Transport Officer, Calicut to get the registration certificate of the vehicle issued. It is further submitted that policy of insurance was taken in the name of the complainant with respect to the vehicle from the date of sale of the vehicle and the policy of insurance was submitted to the Regional Transport Officer to get the vehicle registered. The learned counsel for the second respondent/second opposite party further submitted that there was no contract or agreement entered into between the complainant and the second opposite party/manufacturer of the vehicle with respect to registration of the vehicle or taking the insurance policy for the vehicle. He vehemently argued for the position that the second opposite party was an unnecessary party and no relief can be granted against the second opposite party. Thus, the respondents 1 and 2 prayed for dismissal of the present appeal.
7. There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant purchased a Tata Indica Xeta GLS Car from the first respondent/first opposite party Koyenco Autos Private Ltd., Calicut. The first opposite party was the then dealer of the Tata vehicles in Calicut. The second respondent/second opposite party is the manufacturer of the aforesaid Tata Indigo Car. The aforesaid purchase of the vehicle is evidenced by A3 copy of the bills issued by the first opposite party/dealer of the vehicle. The Tax invoice and vehicle delivery acknowledgement note issued by the first opposite party Koyenco Private Ltd. would make it abundantly clear that the said vehicle was purchased by the complainant from the first opposite party/dealer on 17.10.06. The terms and conditions of the sale are also incorporated in the Tax invoice dated 17.10.06. The said vehicle was taken delivery by the complainant on 19.10.06. The documentary evidence available on record and the testimony of the complainant as PW1 would make it clear that all the sale transactions with respect to the said vehicle were entered into between the complainant and the first opposite party/dealer. It is true that the second opposite party is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. Thereby, the second opposite party is only answerable and responsible for the said vehicle which was manufactured by the second opposite party. There is nothing on record to show that the second opposite party had agreed to effect registration of the vehicle or to take policy of insurance for the said vehicle. There is also nothing on record to show that the second opposite party/manufacturer of the vehicle collected any amount from the complainant towards the registration charge or for taking the policy of insurance with respect to the vehicle. Thus, the second opposite party cannot be made liable for the alleged deficiency in service with respect to the issuance of registration certificate and policy of insurance.
8. The third opposite party/Regional Transport Officer, Calicut entered appearance and handed over the registration certificate with respect to the vehicle. The aforesaid registration certificate was handed over to the complainant during the pendency of the complaint in CC.125/07. The complainant has also admitted the fact that the registration certificate of the vehicle was handed over by the third opposite party on 14.5.08 and thereby the complainant did not seek any other remedy against the third opposite party.
9. The first respondent/first opposite party collected the registration fee from the appellant/complainant. The first opposite party had also collected the amount for taking the policy of insurance. Thus, it was the bounden duty of the first opposite party/dealer to take necessary steps to hand over the registration certificate and policy of insurance with respect to the vehicle to the complainant. The Sales Manager of the first opposite party as RW1 has categorically admitted that the complainant purchased the Car from the first opposite party/dealer. RW1categorically admitted the fact that the first opposite party confirmed the registration of the vehicle and insurance. It is also admitted by RW1 that the necessary forms for registration and for taking the policy of insurance were filled by the officials of the first opposite party. It is also deposed by RW1 that the steps for registration of the vehicle and for taking policy of insurance for the vehicle are being taken by the dealer on behalf of the customer. It is specifically admitted by RW1 that getting the vehicle registered and insured is part of the deal on the part of the first opposite party/dealer. Admittedly, in this case, the registration certificate of the vehicle was obtained by the complainant/owner of the vehicle after 1 ½ years. RW1 has also admitted this fact.
10. Ext.A1 is copy of the registered letter dated 5.12.06 issued by the complainant to the first opposite party/dealer, Koyenco Autos Private Ltd. Calicut. Acceptance of the original of A1 registered letter is not disputed by the first respondent/first opposite party. In A1 letter, the complainant requested the first opposite party/dealer to take necessary steps to issue the certificate of registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. It was also stated in the said letter regarding the mistake crept into the registration certificate with respect to the father’s name and address of the complainant/registered owner. It was also stated in A1 registered letter about the failure on the part of the first opposite party/ dealer to hand over the policy of insurance of the vehicle. It is further stated that not even a single paper related to the policy of insurance was given to the complainant and that the complainant is not in a position to ply the vehicle because of the non availability of the registration certificate and insurance paper. Thereby, the complainant requested the first respondent for taking necessary steps to issue the registration certificate and policy of insurance. But on getting A1 registered letter, the first respondent did not take any steps. No reply was issued to the said letter. The complainant has been remitting the installments to the financier who rendered financial assistance to the complainant for purchasing the vehicle. Thus, the failure on the part of the first respondent/first opposite party dealer has been established in this case. A1 letter itself is sufficient to prove the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
11. A perusal of the written version filed by the first opposite party would give a clear indication that there occurred some mistakes crept into the registration certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Calicut and that the complainant requested the first opposite party to take necessary steps to get the mistake corrected and to issue a proper registration certificate with respect to the vehicle purchased by the complainant. But, there is nothing on record to show that the first opposite party had taken any steps in getting the registration certificate issued in the correct name and address of the complainant, the owner of the vehicle.
12. The oral testimony of RW1, the Sales Manager of the first opposite party/dealer is sufficient enough to hold that there was deficiency in service on the part of the first respondent/first opposite party in taking necessary steps to get the registration certificate of the vehicle. There was also delay and failure on the part of the first opposite party/dealer to hand over the policy of insurance with respect to the vehicle. It is to be noted that the policy of insurance for the vehicle was taken by the first opposite party/dealer. But they failed to hand over copy of the insurance or any related paper to show that the vehicle is having a valid policy of insurance. It is true that the policy was taken for the vehicle at the instance of the first opposite party/dealer with effect from 17.10.06. But that fact was not known to the complainant who purchased the vehicle and paid the insurance premium. It is also to be noted that the insurance premium was collected by the first opposite party/dealer from the complainant. It was the duty of the first opposite party/dealer to hand over the policy of insurance to the complainant. The first opposite party could not give copy of the insurance policy or some other paper evidencing issuance of policy for the said vehicle. So, the aforesaid failure on the part of the first opposite party would amount to deficiency in service.
13. The first opposite party also failed to take necessary steps for issuance of registration certificate for the vehicle. Admittedly, it was the duty of the first opposite party/dealer to take necessary steps to get the registration certificate issued in the correct name and address of the complainant. But, the first opposite party (first respondent) dealer of the vehicle failed to take necessary steps in appropriate time. It would also amount to deficiency in service. The Forum below cannot be justified in absolving the first opposite party from their liability to take necessary steps for issuance of registration certificate and insurance policy for the vehicle.
14. The evidence of the complainant as PW1 would make it clear that he was not in a position to ply the vehicle and he had to keep the vehicle idle for more than 1 ½ years. So, the complainant is to be compensated for the mental agony and inconveniences suffered by him during the aforesaid period. The claim made for Rs.4,52,160/- can be treated as exorbitant and the said claim is without any basis. Considering the mental agony, discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the first respondent/first opposite party. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Forum below is set aside and that the complaint in CC.125/07 is allowed directing the first opposite party, General Manager, Koyenco Autos Private Ltd, West Hill, Calicut to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party in taking necessary steps to get the registration certificate and policy of insurance for the vehicle issued to the complainant.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.11.09 passed by CDRF, Kozhikode in CC.125/07 is set aside. The complaint in CC.125/07 is allowed directing the first opposite party (first respondent) to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant (appellant) for the deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. The opposite parties 2 and 3 (respondents 2 and 3) are absolved from the liability to pay any compensation to the complainant. The appellant/complainant is entitled to get cost of Rs.500/- from the first respondent/first opposite party. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid to the appellant/complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, failing which the said amount will carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this judgment.
M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
s/L
