PER SHRI.ATUL D.ALSI, HON’BLE PRESIDENT The complainant has filed this complaint case alleging non supply of original documents of the vehicle and non-registration of vehicle in his name and praying for direction to the OPs to supply original documents of the vehicle and to pay compensation of rupees 50,000/- besides cost. 2. Facts of the case, in nutshell, are as under.. The complainant purchased a two-wheeler TVS Vigo bearing No.MH-34 AE 2903 from OP No.1 i.e. the vehicle dealer on 11/1/2011 by paying price of Rs.44,610/- by obtaining finance from OP No.2 who is the financer. On 7/9/2012, after repayment of vehicle loan, the OP No.2 issued no due certificate along with form No.35 for getting the vehicle transferred in his name.On 4/9/2014, when the complainant received particulars of vehicle registration from OP No.3, RTO Chandrapur, he was shocked to see that the vehicle stands registered in the name of OP No.4, Shri.BanduWagh. The complainant further submitted that the OP No.2 failed to deliver original documents such as Road Tax receipt, R/C Book to the complainant. The complainant moved application for supply of original documents and transfer of ownership of the vehicle in his name with OP Nos.1 to 4 but no steps were taken by the OPs. As the vehicle stands in the name of some other person, it has become difficult for the complainant to ply the vehicle on road. Hence the present petition is filed with a plea to direct the OPs to register the vehicle in complainants name and supply original documents of the vehicle and further to pay compensation for mental torture and agony amounting to Rs.50,000/- besides litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-. 3. In response to the notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Commission and filed its reply. In its reply, the OP No.1 admitted sell of vehicle bearing No.MH-34, AE 2903 to the complainant. It submitted that all the original documents were handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle and those documents were kept in the custody of OP No.2 against the loan obtained by the complainant as per his own admission in the complaint. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in the year 2011 and demand for documents has been made in the year 2015 and as such the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The OP No.1 has no role to play in the matter of non release of original documents kept under hypothecation by the OP No.2.There is no cause of action against the OP No.1 and hence the case may be dismissed with cost against OP No.1. 4. OP No.2 & 4 are served with notice but they chose not to appear before this Commission nor they filed any reply to the complaint. Hence the case proceeded exparteagainst OP Nos.2 & 4 vide order passed by this Commission on 4/8/2016 and 18/11/2021 respectively. 5. The OP No.3 R.T.O. Chandrapur has filed its reply to the complainant admitting therein that the vehicle bearing No.MH-34, AE 2903 stands in the name of OP No.4 Mr.BanduSambhaWagh, R/o Urjanagar, Chandrapur. The chassis registration receipt has been issued by paying fees in RTO office, Chandrapur in favour of complainant, but the original documents for registration of vehicle have not been submitted to the RTO and hence the vehicle could not be registered in his name. The OP No.3 RTP carries out statutory functions of the government and does not provide “service” within the meaning attributed under C.P.Act,1986. There is no consumable relationship of in between the complainant and the RTO and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed as against OP No.3. 6. The counsel for the parties present before the Commission argued on the lines of their respective pleadings in the complaint and the written versions. We have gone through the rival pleadings and the evidence produced on record. After a careful scrutiny thereof, we record our finding to the issues of tenability and deficiency in service, as under.. REASONING 7. The OP No.1 has raised preliminary objection to the tenability of the complaint alleging it to be barred by Limitation. As per OP No.1, thecomplainant has purchased the vehicle in the year 2011 and has filed this complaint in the year 2015 and as such it is hopelessly barred by limitation. However, as in the meantime the complainant was pursuing the process of transfer of ownership with the OP No.3 RTO and OP No.2 financer, the cause of action is continuous one and hence the complaint is filed within limitation period. 8. Admittedly, the complainant purchased a two-wheeler TVS Vigo bearing No.MH-34 AE 2903 from OP No.1 on 11/1/2011 by obtaining finance from OP No.2 who is the financer. After repayment of vehicle loan, on 7/9/2012,the OP No.2 issued no due certificate along with form No.35 for getting the vehicle transferred in the name of complainant. For effecting transfer of ownership of the vehicle it is incumbent to submit original R.C.Book, tax receipt along with insurance etc. to the RTO, however, the OP No.2 did not supply these documents to the complainant despite specific written demand to that effect. As these documents are still in the custody of OP No.2, the complainant could not submit them to the RTO, Chandrapur and hence the ownership of the vehicle could not be transferred in his name as yet. After repayment of loan, it is the duty of the OP No.2 financer to return the original documents of the hypothecated vehicle to the owner for taking further appropriate steps. However, the OP No.2 failed to do so which is a clear-cut deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 i.e. the Financer. From the transaction it is also clear that the OP Nos.1,3 & 4 have no role to play therein and they need to be exonerated from any liability arising therefrom. In view of our above observations it is necessary to direct the OP No.2 to supply all necessary original documents of the vehicle i.e. R.C.Book, Tax receipt etc. to the complainant so as to enable him to get the vehicle registered in his name. The complainant has sustained mental and physical harassment in the transaction for which he is entitled to get an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/- from OP No.2. Hence we proceed to pass the following order.. ORDER - The complaint No.CC/15/168 is partly allowed.
- The OP No.2 shall supply original documents of the vehicle in question including R.C.Book, Taxreceipt etc. to the complainant.
- The OP No.2 shall pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- litigation charges.
- Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
|
