DATE OF FILING : 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  27th  day of  April,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.374/2013

Between

Complainant       :   Muhammed Haneefa,

Amaraparambil House,   

Moolamattam P.O.,

Thodupuzha, Idukki.

(By Adv:  K.M. Sanu)

And

Opposite Parties                                          :   1. The Manager,

      Popular Mega Motors,

      Pala Road, Thodupuzha, Idukki.

      (By Advs:  Lal K. Joseph & 

Thomas K.J.)

  2. The Manager,

      Tata Motors Ltd.,

      Pune.

      (By Advs:  V. Krishnamenon & 

Sibi Thomas)

3.  The Manager,

     Tata Motor Finance Ltd.,

     Velloorkkunam P.O.,

     Muvattupuzha.

    (By Adv:  Shiji Joseph) 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

The complainant had purchased a Tata Ace Magic from the  1st opposite party.  The complainant had approached the 1st opposite party for purchasing Tata Ace Goods vehicle and due to the persuasion of the executives of the 1st opposite party, he happened to purchase the passenger 7 seater vehicle on 19.12.2017, with the financial assistance of 3rd opposite party.  After that, the complainant produced this vehicle before the Joint RTO, Thodupuzha, for registration and for taxi permit, along with the vehicle documents such as Tax invoice, sale certificate, temporary permit and insurance certificate.  But the Joint RTO, denied to issue taxi permit on the reason that the seating capacity is

    (cont.....2)

-  2  -

stated in the above documents were differently.  In the tax invoice, the seating capacity was stated as 8, at the same time, the vehicle capacity is stated in the temporary permit and sale certificate are 7.  In the insurance certificate, it is stated as 6.  For getting clarification in this matter, the Joint RTO issued letter to the manufacturer in the month of February, 2013.  The complainant also intimated this matter to the 1st opposite party, for giving clarification to the Joint RTO, directly.  But the 1st opposite party wilfully neglected his request and till now the 1st opposite party has not taken any steps to clarify the mistakes to the RTO.

 

Being an auto driver, complainant is having no other means to meet his daily expenses.  Due to the mistake in documents, the RTO authorities denied to issue the  vehicle permit.  Without a permit, complainant is not in a position to ply his vehicle.  This vehicle is purchased with the financial assistance of 3rd opposite party and due to this reason, complainant is not in a position to remit the monthly instalments.

 

The complainant further contended that, the vehicle is keeping as idle.  Due  to this, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/- per month for the last 11 months.  Moreover, the Joint RTO authorities directed the complainant to surrender the vehicle before them.  All these are happened due to the negligence and unfair trade practice from the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties.  Due to this act of 1st and 2nd opposite parties, complainant suffered both mental and physical hardships and financial loss. Alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against opposite parties, complainant filed this petition for getting the relief such as to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the expenses which was incurred to the complainant due to the purchase of this vehicle and also direct them to pay an amount of Rs.165000/- as loss of income for the last 11 months and also direct them to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.

 

Upon notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, 1st opposite party contended that when the complainant approached them and based on the enquiries made by the complainant, the 1st opposite party had provided all the details of both Tata Ace Goods vehicle as well as Tata Ace Magic.  After evaluating the pros and cons of each vehicle, the complainant himself had chosen to book the Tata Ace Magic vehicle by taking a decision of his own.  Further contended that there occurred a  minor  clerical  error  while  preparing  the tax invoice as the seating capacity was wrongly mentioned as 8 numbers instead of 7 numbers including the driver. 

    (cont.....3)

-  3  -

Upon noticing the said mistake, immediately their staff personally contacted the Joint RTO and produced the approval given by the Automotive Research Association of India to the model of the said vehicle to prove the  seating capacity.  Further averred that on the date of communication, ie, 12.3.2013, the complainant collected all the supporting documents from 1st opposite party. Thereafter  nothing was heard from the complainant and he neither called 1st opposite party nor issued any communication intimating about the status of said application.  If at all taxi permit was denied by the authority, it can only be due to some other reasons, not attributable to the opposite party.  As far as 1st opposite party is concerned, they provided all the documents and on the basis of it, the said vehicle was registered on 27.12.2012, showing the seating capacity as 7 and the complainant had already remitted the tax based on the same way.

 

Opposite party further contended that the seating capacity stated in the insurance policy as 6 numbers is a misleading statement and this opposite party cannot be held responsible for any action that may be taken by the financier.  Moreover, the complainant is making an attempt to encash a small and innocuous clerical error for making unlawful gain at the expense of the opposite parties. 

In the reply version, 2nd opposite party reiterated the contention of the 1st opposite party. In addition to it, 2nd opposite party contended that the vehicle of the complainant was registered by the registering authority on 27.12.2012, ie, even before the filing of the above complaint, showing the seating capacity as 7 and the complainant had already remitted the tax dues and is operating his vehicle as taxi. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Third opposite party, in their reply version, contended that the complainant  availed  the loan for purchasing a  Tata Magic  Passenger vehicle for taxi purpose, hence the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant who made wilful default in repaying the loan, has approached this Forum with an ulterior motive not to repay the loan. The complainant chosen the vehicle on his own choice and approached the 3rd opposite party for the loan. The loan was given to the complainant, without any condition that, the loan repayment was in relation to the performance of the vehicle. The repayment of the loan and performance of the vehicle is no way related. Hence the complainant is liable to pay the loan irrespective of the alleged complaint to the vehicle. The complainant failed to make any prima facei case against this opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.    (cont.....4)

-  4  -

The evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5(series) were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of tax invoice dated 19.12.2012. Ext.P2 is the sale certificate dated 27.12.2012. Ext.P3 is the temporary registration certificate copy dated 27.12.2012. Ext.P4 is the copy of insurance policy dated 28.12.2017. Ext.P5(series) is the report of Joint RTO, Thodupuzha dated 27.10.2014.

From the defence side, one Manoj, Senior Manager of 1st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R7 were marked. Ext.R1 is the copy of ARAI certificate and circular of the Transport Commissioner dated 28.7.2007. Ext.R2 is the copy of letter showing the correction in seating capacity from 1st opposite party to the Joint RTO. Ext.R3 is the copy of the tax invoice.  Ext.R4 is the sale certificate. Ext.R5 is the copy of insurance policy. Ext.R6 is the copy of RC Particulars. Ext.R7 is the vehicle data sheet dated 26.12.2012.

Heard both sides. The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-  We have heard the submissions made by both sides and perused the evidences on record and depositions of witnesses. It is an admitted fact that the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant temporarily. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, the registering authority denied to issue vehicle permit on the reason that, on further perusal of the records, submitted by the 1st opposite party, the seating capacity of the vehicle are stated as differently. Being an auto driver, complainant purchased the vehicle for using it as taxi, for his livelihood.  Without a valid taxi permit from the authority, he cannot ply this vehicle in public road. Due to the irresponsible act of 1st opposite party in correcting error in records, he had to suffered a lot. The learned counsel pointed out the errors in the Ext.P2 tax invoice and Ext.P4 insurance policy. In Ext.P1, the seating capacity is entered as 8 persons.  At the same time, in Ext.P4, seating capacity is stated as 6 numbers. All other 

(cont.....5)

-  5  -

documents issued by the 1st opposite party such as sale certificate, temporary permit, etc. shows the seating capacity as 7 numbers. This discrepancy was noted by the registration authority and they objected to issue permanent Registration and Tax Permit. This caused much financial loss to the complainant, because  of that he kept the vehicle idle for so many months.

Eventhough the concerned Joint RTO, issued letter to the 1st opposite party for clarification, they delayed the matter for so many months. Hence the opposite parties are bound to pay compensation for the delayed month to the complainant along with cost.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st opposite party submitted that immediately after getting the information of the error in tax invoice, they given letter to the RTO stating the actual fact and copy of the letter is marked as Ext.R2. Moreover, as per the registration particulars, the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant permanently on 27.1.2013 as KL-38-C/5275 and the complainant paid its tax also. The learned counsel further argued that the vehicle is having the seating capacity of 7 persons including the driver and it is stated in insurance certificate as 6+1, it is evident from Ext.R5. Hence the clerical error was happened in Ext.P1 tax invoice alone and it is cleared immediately after getting the information and given clarification to the concerned RTO, by the staff of 1st opposite party verbally and documentarily. Hence no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is happened in this matter. Moreover, the complainant himself deposed  at the time of his cross examination, that the vehicle had already run more than 30,000/- km. Hence no damage is caused to him in this matter as alleged.

 

       As per the documents discussed above and the pleading in the complainant, it is an admitted fact that, the documents which were produced by the opposite party 1 and 2, for registering the vehicle, bears some clerical error and the registered authority denied to issue the fitness certificate. Without a fitness certificate, it is illegal to ply the vehicle in the public. From the deposition of the complainant, it is seen that the vehicle authorities examined the vehicle once, without having its fitness certificate. By perusing the records, it is seen 

     (cont.....6)

-  6  -

that the 1st opposite party given clarification in the matter of seating capacity of the vehicle was on 12th March, 2013. In the clarification letter, opposite parties admitted the clerical mistake in the tax invoice. Along with the letter, they given a corrected tax invoice to the Joint RTO, Thodupuzha. It is after a lapse of 3 months from the date of temporary registration. As per the direction from this Froum, the Joint RTO, Thodupuzha filed a report in this matter and it is taken as the part of evidence as Ext.P5. In this matter, the Joint RTO reported that, “KL/38K/5278 F¶ hml\w 22.1.2013-þ Cu Hm^o-kn cPn-ÌÀ sN¿p-I-bp-­m-bn.  t]m¸p-eÀ saKm tamt«mgvkv sIm¨n³ BWv Cu hml-\-¯nsâ UoeÀ.  UoeÀ kaÀ¸n¨ t^mdw \¼À 21 {]Imcw Cu hml\w 7 koäpw SmIvkv C³thmbvkv {]Imcw 8 koäpw Bbn IWvS­-Xnsâ shfn-¨-¯n Cu hml-\-¯n\v ^näv\kv kÀ«n-^n-¡äv \ÂIp-I-bp-­WvSm-bn-Ã.  kqjva]cntim[-\-bn {]kvXpX hml\w 8 koäp-f-f-Xm-sW¶pw hml\ UoeÀ¡v kw`-hn¨ Hcp sXämtWm AtXm a\:-]qÀÆw hml\w hm§nb Bsf I_-fn-¸n-¡p-¶-Xn-\mbn sNbvXXmtWm F¶v Adn-bp-hm³ Ign-bp-¶n-Ã.” On going through the exhibits discussed above, it is obvious that, due to the clerical mistake in the tax invoice, the concerned registering authority denied to issue a fitness certificate to the vehicle which is the subject matter and it caused some damages to the complainant. At the same time, on cross examination, the complainant stated that, hml\w F{X HmSn F¶v IrX-y-ambn HmÀ¡p-¶n-Ã.  30000 In.-ao. HmSn F¶v ]d-bp-¶p.  Adn-bn-à (A). (page No.3). 

From Ext.P5, the report of the Joint RTO, dated 27.10.2014, we can see that, they has not issued the fitness certificate of the vehicle still, as per the opinion of the Joint RTO, the error which is occurred in the tax invoice may or may not be intentional. On inspection, they noticed that the vehicle is coming under the category of 8 seater. The error caused may be for cheating the customer.

On joint reading the opinion of Joint RTO, Thodupuzha and the deposition of the complainant, we can see that, the vehicle is confiscated by the police on the direction of RT authorities and now also it is under police custody due to the reason that the vehicle is not fit for public conveyance due to the discrepancy in the records. It is also very pertinent to note that, the clarification given by the 1st opposite party, in this matter was not accepted by the transport 

       (cont.....7)

-  7  -

authorities. On going through the above records and evidences, the Forum is of a considered view that the manufacturer is the sole authority to give clarification in this matter. Unfortunately, no effort was taken from the side of the manufacturer, that is, the 2nd opposite party. Being the manufacturer of the vehicle, 2nd opposite party is liable to clear the doubts in this matter. At the same time, 1st opposite party issued a clarification letter and from the evidence, we can see that it is not accepted by the Regional Transport Authorities. No evidence is adduced by 2nd opposite party to convince that, the clarification of the 1st opposite party is sufficient to issue necessary records to the complainant’s vehicle, or 2nd opposite party is having no responsibility in this matter.   

As per the deposition of the DW1, the Senior Manager of 1st opposite party, the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant and it is evident from Ext.R6 registration certificate particulars. In cross examination, the witness deposed that it is the duty of the manufacturer to give clarification regarding the error in the seating capacity and 1st opposite party has not intimated this matter to the 2nd opposite party. He added, Cu mistake aqew permit e`n-¡m-sXbn-cp-¶Xpw hml\w RTO ]nSn-¨p-sIm-­WvSp-t]m-bXpw Adnbmw.  At the same time, the learned counsel suggested that, Cu hml\w sSÌv \S¯nsbSp-¡p-¶-Xn\v RTO Office-þ Hcp XS-Ê-hp-an-Ãm-sb¶v ]d-bp-¶p(Q).  icn-b-Ã(A).   hml\w lmP-cm-¡n-bm RTO Office-þ \n¶pw FÃmw X¿m-dm¡n Xcm-sa¶v ]d-bp-¶p(Q). From this statement, we can see that it is admitted by the 1st opposite party that, the records of the vehicle is not completed still and they are ready and willing to clear the defects of the records when the vehicle is produced before the RT authorities.

On going through the above deposition and records, in our view, it is an admitted fact that, the RTO authorities has not satisfied the clarification of the 1st opposite party, regarding the error in the matter of seating capacity and the Joint RTO, Thodupuzha specifically stated in his report (Ext.P5) that it may be to cheat the customer and on inspection, it is seen that the vehicle is coming under the category of 8 seater.  As per the contention in the report and as per the 

  (cont.....8)

-  8  -

Motor Vehicle rule, the vehicles having 8 seat capacity is bound to pay Rs.4000/- in quarterly month as vehicle tax. In order to avoid this heavy burden, complainant opted to purchase a 7 seater But the 1st opposite party misleaded him and issued an 8 seater vehicle on the pretext that it is a 7 seater and issued the above said record and thereby the complainant was trapped. This is the contention of the complainant. This contention of the complainant was not rebutted by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties with clear and cogent evidence. They has not taken any steps to call for the Joint RTO, who issued Ext.P5 report, as a witness for rebutting the opinion in this report.

       On perusal of the records and deposition, it reveals that opposite parties are miserably failed to prove their version with sufficient materials and also we are not at all impressed by the deposition of the DW1 that, “ the vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant on 27.12.2012, as per Ext.R6 and from the RC particulars it is seen that, the seating capacity of the vehicle is 7.  It is done by the RT authorities after satisfying their clarification regarding the seating capacity”.  At the same time, as per Ext.R3, we can see that 1st opposite party given clarification letter to the Joint RTO, Thodupuzha on 12th March, 2013.  It is obvious that the vehicle was registered in the year 2012 itself, but the vehicle department denied the issuance of permit and fitness certificate thereafter.

      On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum finds gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Due to this act, the complainant suffered a lot and the opposite parties are bound to compensate him adequately. Hence the complaint allowed. The Forum directs 1st and 2nd opposite parties to take urgent necessary steps for getting fitness certificate and permit from the concerned RTO office of the above discussed vehicle and deliver the vehicle to the complainant if it is in the custody of the vehicle department or police department. If the vehicle is in the custody of the complainant, complainant is directed to produce it before the concerned authority as and when it is demanded. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1 lakh as damages and Rs.5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this 

  (cont.....9)

-  9  -

order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realization. 

         Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27th day of  April, 2018

 

       Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

       Sd/-

SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   P. Muhammed Haneefa.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  G. Manoj.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1          -  copy of tax invoice dated 19.12.2012. 

Ext.P2        -  sale certificate dated 27.12.2012. 

Ext.P3        -  temporary registration certificate copy dated 27.12.2012. 

Ext.P4        -  copy of insurance policy dated 28.12.2017. 

Ext.P5(series) - report of Joint RTO, Thodupuzha dated 27.10.2014.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1         -  copy of ARAI certificate and circular of the Transport

    Commissioner dated 28.7.2007. 

Ext.R2       -  copy of letter showing the correction in seating capacity from 

  1st opposite party to the Joint RTO. 

Ext.R3      - copy of the tax invoice.  

Ext.R4      - sale certificate. 

Ext.R5      - copy of insurance policy. 

Ext.R6      - copy of RC Particulars. 

Ext.R7      - vehicle data sheet dated 26.12.2012.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

           SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT