SMT. RAVI SUSHA  : PRESIDENT

      Complainant  filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking to get an order directing opposite party  to pay an amount of Rs.137500/- and cost of the  proceedings of this case.

   The facts in brief are as follows:-

  The complainant is a driver, booked a Nano Twist OTG car from P’s showroom on 30/8/2017 for a total purchase price of Rs.3,34,905/-.  The complainant had availed a loan from Syndicate Bank, Chandanakkampara branch  through OP’s bank.  After receipt of the amount the OP took delivery of the vehicle on 30/8/2019. Complainant alleged that even though he booked 2017 model vehicle, the OP has given 2016 model vehicle.  But when the complainant took the  vehicle for inspection before the Joint RTO, Taliparamba for registration, they did not register  the vehicle by saying that speed governor is not attached to the vehicle. When the complainant informed the OP, the difficulty to register the vehicle the OP have directed the complainant to surrender the vehicle in the OP’s show room and the complainant accordingly surrendered .the vehicle within a week.  Thereafter the OP has dragged him  3 months and the complainant could not get back the vehicle to register the vehicle and ply it in the road.  The complainant started payment of hire purchase instalment to the  tune of Rs.6000/- per month and now the complainant paid Rs.18000/- 3 months instalments. It is submitted that  OP insisted the complainant  to pay  Rs.14,500/- more to give back the vehicle for speed governor .  The complainant was able to  register the vehicle before the RTO authority.  There was a delay in registering the vehicle on account of OP’s deficiency of service. The complainant is entitled to get Rs.14,500/- and Rs.18,000/- 3 months EMI and Rs.3000/- being the delayed payment fine  from the OP.  Moreover the complainant lost  his income for 3 months.  The illegal act and insult of OP, complainant sustained unaccountable mental agony and pain, he assess Rs.1,00,00/-  as damages  from the OP. Hence this complaint.

     Opposite party filed version admits that the purchase of the vehicle and  availed loan for his purchase.  The OP denies the allegation that the he had given delivery of 2016 model vehicle instead of 2017 model and the complainant had purchased the vehicle for using  as taxi and that fact has been reveal to the OP, the complainant being a  driver by profession  is well aware f the mode of registration of the vehicle and its procedure.  OP further submits that the complainant had approached the  joint RTO Thaliparamba for the permanent registration at the fag end of the prescribed period for permanent registration.  According to OP since complainant is a driver, he might have knowledge about  fitting of speed governor in taxi vehicle, then there is latches on the part of complainant himself for the delay of registration of the vehicle.  In fact the complainant had not informed  his  intention to use the vehicle as a taxi.  Even the OP informed the complainant to bring the vehicle to their show room for doing the necessary things for the registration and also for fitting the speed governor as it is mandatory for the registration  but the complainant brought the vehicle for the same only on 30/9/2017 and the OP’s staff clearly informed him  that the speed governor  is not an inbuilt system and the cost of the vehicle is devoid of the price of the  same and if the complainant had any personal connections he could have done by himself or  this OP will assist the complainant for fitting the same. The OP put the speed governor from M&M company and handed over the bill of Rs.14500/- to the complainant.  The delay was only  four days and that too was caused only due to the reasons beyond the control of the OP and it was caused due to the irresponsible attitude of the complainant and  also due to non-availability of getting the speed governor.  OP further stated that the complainant approached the joint RTO Thaliparamba on the last day of registration  without  fixing the speed governor they did not register the vehicle because the law attaching speed governor  to the vehicle used for taxi was compulsory only at that time.  The OP had managed to arrange the speed governor system on 27/10/17 with great effort and pain and it could have been done much earlier  if the complainant gave consent  for the same.  The registration of the vehicle was delayed due to the negligence and omission on the part of complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from the OP.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.      

      Two witnesses including the complainant and the Bank manager of Syndicate Bank from where the complainant has availed vehicle finance were examined.  He has also produced documents Exts.A1 to A8.  On the other hand OP produced service history of the vehicle and marked as Ext.B1.  After that the learned counsel of OP filed written  argument note.

      One of the allegation of complainant is that though he  booked 2017 model vehicle, OP had given only 2016 model vehicle.  On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the OP  was that the said allegation of the  complainant is not correct.  The real fact is evident from the certificate of Registration(Ext.A7) Registration particulars of the vehicle(Ext.A7), Ext.A4 the loan agreement executed between the complainant and the bank.  On perusal of all those documents, it is clearly evident that year of manufacture of the vehicle was 2017.  Moreover during the evidence time, complainant , PW1  deposed that Ext.A4 document പ്രകാരം വാഹനം 2017 model ആണ് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ?(Ans) ശരിയാണ്.  Again he deposed that Ext.A7,A8 പ്രകാരം വാഹനം 2017 model ആണ് എന്നു പറഞ്ഞാൽ? (Ans) ശരിയാണ്.  The OP’s counsel put another question to PW1 2016 model വാഹനമാണെന്ന് തെളിയിക്കാൻ എന്തെങ്കിലും രേഖകൾകൊണ്ട് തയ്യാറാണോ? (Ans) തയ്യാറല്ല.

      After examining the above said documentary evidence and oral evidence of PW1, it is clearly proved that the vehicle purchased by the complainant Tata Nano OTG car from the OP, of 2017 model and the year of manufacture in the document(RC particulars) was mentioned as 2017.  The same year was also mentioned in the RC(Ext.A7).

      Another allegation of the complainant is that for vehicles in the Taxi segment speed governor was compulsory and speed governor is not an inbuilt system and therefore the vehicle  cost is devoid  of cost of speed governor.

      Complainant alleged that he had to pay the cost of speed governor Rs.14500/- to the OP.  According to complainant since he purchased taxi vehicle, it has been well established that all the vehicles in taxi segment should have speed governor, without which registration  is not possible, OP did not make any arrangement for fitting speed governor  at their cost.  Complainant further alleged that there was delay in registering  the vehicle due to the deficiency in service on the part of OP.

  OP contended that the complainant had not informed his intention to use the vehicle as a taxi.  Even then OP informed the complainant to bring the vehicle to their showroom for  doing the necessary things for the registration and also for fitting the speed governor, but the complainant  brought the vehicle only on 30/9/2017.  According to OP, speed  governor  is to be fixed by the complainant at their own cost and OP put the speed governor from outside agencies and fitted.  OP further submitted that delay was only four days and that too was caused only due to the reasons beyond the control of the OP and it was caused due to the irresponsible attitude of the complainant and  also due to non-availability of getting the speed governor.  OP further stated that the complainant approached the joint RTO Thaliparamba on the last day of registration  without  fixing the speed governor.  According to OP since complainant is a driver, he might have knowledge about  fitting of speed governor in taxi vehicle, then there is latches on the part of complainant himself for the delay of registration of the vehicle.  OP further contended that the complainant did not produce any document to show that  he approached the RTO office for registration  within 30 days from its purchase.  OP further stated that the  fine  for the delay of  registration at the RTO office ,Rs.3000/- was remitted by the OP.  The non production of  above said documents by the  complainant would clearly shows that the allegation of complainant with regard to the above said points are not true facts.  Further complainant has not produced any material evidence to show that due to the delay of 3 months of registration of the vehicle was happened from OP’s side and thus he had to pay Rs.18,000/-, 3 months EMI before the finance institution.

   In view of the discussions held above, this complaint is devoid of merit and hence the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

Exts.

A1-loan account statement

A2-Copy of instalment receipt

A3-copy invoice

A4- loan Agreement

A5-Request issued by complainant to OP

A6-Account statement

A7-copy of RC

A8-particulers of RC

B1- service history of vehicle

PW1-Dileep.N.A- witness of PW2

PW2-Shaji Scaria- complainant

Sd/                                                         Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                     MEMBER                                         MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                            Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR