By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant was the owner of Maruti Zen red color car with registration No. KL 14 A 7007, model of the vehicle was 1996 and the engine No. was GIOBIN173992 with chassis No.MA3EYE 31S00173444. The opposite party assessed the value of the vehicle as Rs.58,000/- on 21/12/2016 and the same was sold to the opposite party. Thereafter the complainant purchased New Maruthi Alto Lxi 800 from the opposite party adding some amount with the same. The complainant had handed over possession letter to the opposite party and the opposite party issued delivery receipt of the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant had entrusted all the documents including the sale letter to the opposite party for the transfer of the registration certificate from the name of complainant.
2. The opposite party had assured that the registration certificate will be transferred from the name of complainant. Meanwhile, on 22/06/2017 the complainant received a notice from the JFCM (Forest offences) court, Nedumangad . The content in the notice was to appear before the court in connection with a CMP 1960/2017 connected with the aforesaid vehicle. Immediately the complainant approached the opposite parties and then they said to the complainant that due to some inconvenience they could not transfer the RC and assured that they will do the proper things and manage the issues in respect of the complaint before JFCM court.
3. But thereafter it was noticed that the opposite party did not make any attempt to transfer the RC of the vehicle. The complainant submit that he is learned from the website of motor vehicles department that the vehicle stands still in the name of the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the fact but the opposite party did not give a proper answer or did not take any step to solve the issue. Thereafter the complainant issued a lawyer notice stating the default on the part of opposite parties and to take steps to change the RC from the name of complainant. But the opposite party, despite of receipt of notice on 28/09/2020 no reply was issued and not acted as demanded in the notice.
4. The complainant submits that the registration certificate still stands in the name of the complainant. Due to the act of the opposite parties the complainant is suffering mental agony and inconveniences. Complainant apprehends that he will suffer inconvenience and hardship due to the improper attitude in the matter of complaint pending before JFCM court. Hence the prayer of the complainant is that to direct the opposite parties to initiate appropriate procedures to transfer the RC from the name of complainant. The complainant also prays for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- due the unfair and deficient service from the part of opposite parties.
5. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The opposite parties denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties admitted that the complainant had purchased one Maruthi Alto Lxi 800 from the opposite party and at that time he had exchanged his vehicle Maruthi Zen KL 14 A 7007 through brokers and he had transferred the vehicle documents also. The opposite parties denied that the averment the opposite party issued documents including sale letter to the opposite party and the same can be seen from the possession letter produced by the complainant itself.
6. The opposite parties denied the averment in the complaint that the complainant approached the opposite party , that there is a complaint CMP 1960/2017 is pending in respect of vehicle KL 14 A 7007, complainant approached to resolve the issues which was informed the opposite parties, the registration certificate of the vehicle was not transferred due to busy engagements, the opposite party had assured the cases will be handled by the opposite parties, steps will be taken for shifting the owner ship from the RC etc. was assured by the employees of the opposite party is baseless, false and manipulated one. The opposite party submitted that they have received lawyer notice as stated in the complaint. But the issue was enquired several times, no solution was found out etc are cooked up stories to file this complaint.
7. The complainant approached the opposite party during 2016 Christmas season and for obtaining new year benefits, the complainant contacted the true value section of the opposite party and thus the vehicle was handed over to the brokers by the complainant itself. The complainant had not issued authorization letter to transfer the ownership through the sale letter. The certificate issued to the complainant from the true value section of the opposite party reveals the same. The opposite party submitted that on receipt of notice from the opposite party during 2020 September, the opposite party started to enquire before the Palode police station and Nedumangad JFCM, court etc. The opposite party contacted for obtaining court records from the Nedumangad JFCM court but no reply was received. Thereafter on enquiry before the Palade police station it was came to know that the vehicle is not in a road worthy condition and the responsible authorities are initiating legal steps to dispose the vehicle in the auction. It was also stated that in case of selling the vehicle through auction the complainant will not have any inconvenience from the side of the vehicle. But the opposite party submitted that the complainant filed the present complaint before the Commission seeking direction to stop auction proceedings in respect of the vehicle. It is further submitted that if the complainant had appeared before the police station on 15/02/2021 and if the complainant had given permission to proceed with the auction the vehicle might have dismantled and all the issues might have ended. But the complainant filed this complaint only to harass the opposite party.
8. The contention of the opposite party is that despite receipt of notice from JFCM, court Nedumangad on 22/06//2017 the complainant has not taken steps till 23/09/2020. So the complaint is time barred one. The opposite party immediately on receipt of notice from the complainant approached JFCM, Court Nedumangad and also Palode police station. The attempt of the complainant is to extract money from the opposite party. The complainant is aware that the vehicle is not road worthy at all and the same is placed for auction sale on scratch value. The complainant being qualified government employee, willfully with ill motive approached the Commission to harass the opposite party by stating the auction proceedings of the vehicle. So the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled any relief from the opposite party and the complainant is liable to be dismissed with the cost of the opposite party.
9. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A6. Ext. A1 is copy of notice issued from JFCM court Nedumanagad. Ext. A2 is copy of delivery receipt issued by opposite party dated 21/12/2016. Ext. A3 is copy of possession letter issued by the opposite party dated 21/12/2016. Ext. A4 is copy of RC. Ext. A5 is copy of lawyer notice dated 22/09/2020. Ext. A6 is postal acknowledgment receipt. No documents on the side of opposite party.
10. Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents.
The following points arise for consideration:-
1) Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties
2) Relief and cost
11. Point No.1 and 2
The admitted case is that the complainant purchased Maruthi Alto LXI 800 car from the opposite party and the complainant delivered his vehicle to the opposite party to the true value section assessing the value of the vehicle as Rs.58,000/-. The complainant produced Ext. A2 the delivery receipt and Ext. A3 possession certificate to prove his case. Ext. A2 and A3 substantiate the case of the complainant that he delivered his vehicle to the opposite party and the possession was taken over by the opposite party. Ex.t A3 reveals that the complainant had handed over registration certificate of the vehicle and pollution control certificate to the opposite party. The complainant submitted that thereafter he received a notice from the JFCM court, Nedumangad directing him to appear before the court as the RC owner of the vehicle. So the complainant approached the opposite party and demanded to take appropriate steps to transfer the RC from the name of complainant. The opposite party assured that they will take appropriate steps to carry out the same and also they are prepared to deal the case pending before the JFCM, Court Nedumanagad. Later on enquiry through the website the complainant came to know the vehicle sold to the opposite party stands still in the name of the complainant. Hence complainant caused Ext. A5 notice demanding change of RC from the name of complainant and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.
12. The contention of the opposite party is that there is a delay in proceeding with this complaint and so to be dismissed as time barred one. Further the opposite party contended the complainant had not issued sale letter while delivering the vehicle to the true value section of the opposite party as per Ext. A3 itself. Moreover if the complainant had appeared before the JFCM court, Nedumangad as per the Ext. A1 all the issues might have ended. Opposite party further contended that the vehicle was delivered to the brokers through the true value section and the dealing of the same was done by the complainant directly with the brokers.
13. It can be seen that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the opposite party through an exchange of his vehicle. On the same day the complainant delivered the vehicle to the opposite party which is evident from Ext. A2 delivery receipt. The receipt is issued on behalf of KVR auto cars private Limited none other than the opposite party. Ext. A3 reveals the vehicle was in possession of the opposite party with the documents. Ext. A3 is a printed form issued on behalf of the opposite party. The case of the opposite party is that no sale letter was issued at the time of delivery of the vehicle or taking possession of the vehicle. But Ext. A3 does not reveal specific column for issuance of sale letter. It is the duty of the opposite party to collect the sale letter from the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle or taking steps to avail sale letter. The opposite party is being a dealer of vehicle is well aware of the procedure in transaction of a vehicle. So the contention that no sale letter was issued is worthless one and cannot be accepted at all. The documents shows that the vehicle was entrusted with the opposite party with the relevant documents and so it was the duty of the opposite party to see the name of the registered owner stand transferred while disposing the vehicle to the new purchaser . If that is not done from the part of the opposite party there is no doubt, we find the opposite party is at fault. The opposite party is bound to transfer the registration certificate from the name of the complainant in to the name of the new purchaser. In this complaint as per Ext. A1 it can be seen that there is a complaint regarding the vehicle and in which the registered owner is still the complainant. So the allegation of the complainant stands proved through the Ext. A1 also.
14. The complainant submitted that on receipt of the notice from the JFCM court Nedumangad he immediately rushed to the opposite party and the opposite party assured that they will do the necessary steps as demanded by the complainant. But later the complainant caused Ext. A5 notice due to none compliance of the assurance given by the opposite party. It can be seen that there was no proper reply to the notice Ext. A5. Since the documents reveals the vehicles still stands in the name of complainant the question of time limit does not arise and we take it as continuing cause of action. Considering the fact of the complaint it will not be proper to have any liability to the complainant in respect of this vehicle from 21/12/2016 onwards. The Commission is not aware of the facts and circumstances of CMP 1960/2017 pending before the JFCM, Court Nedumangad. It appears that the cause of action if any arises after 21/12/2018 for filing CMP 1960/2017 before the JFCM court Nedumangad , it will be the responsibility of the opposite party.
15. Considering the entire documents and evidence it appears there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and it is the right of the complainant to get transfer the name of the complainant from the registration certificate of the vehicle No.KL 14 A 7007. The opposite party is liable to take appropriate steps to transfer the registration certificate from the name of the complainant. The opposite party is liable to pay the cost of the proceedings and we fix the same as Rs.10,000/-. We do not find the complainant sustained any financial loss and thereby he is entitled any amount as compensation.
16. In the interest of justice, we partly allow this complaint as follows: -
1. The opposite party is directed to take appropriate steps to transfer the Registration certificate from the name of the complainant to the name of appropriate person to whom the opposite party sold the vehicle. The complainant is liable to issue sale letter to the opposite party, if it is requested by the opposite party duly.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand
only) as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till date of payment.
Dated this 30th day of May, 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 A6
Ext.A1: Copy of notice issued from JFCM court Nedumanagad.
Ext.A2: Copy of delivery receipt issued by opposite party dated 21/12/2016.
Ext A3: Copy of possession letter issued by the opposite party dated 21/12/2016.
Ext.A4: Copy of RC.
Ext A5: Copy of lawyer notice dated 22/09/2020.
Ext A6: Postal acknowledgment receipt
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Mohandasan . K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
VPH
