EFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER
WARANGALPresent: Sri D. President.
Sri N.J. Mohan Member
And
Smt. V.J.
Monday, the 30th day of June, 2008.
55/2007
Between:
K. Age: 44 yrs,
R/o H.No.2-10-327,
Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
… Complainant
AND
1. The Managing Director,
Dare House, Old.No.234 New No.2,
NSC Bose Road,
2. The Manager
Door No.40-1-182, II Floor, Near
M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 520010.
3. The Manager
Markaji High School,
4. Deputy Transport Commissioner & Secretary,
Regional
Warangal.
… Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant : Sri. K.S.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3: Sri
Counsel for Opposite Party No.4: Did not appear and has been set
This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.
ORDER
Sri D.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant K. The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:
The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased the Jeep bearing No.AP36-V-5219 for Rs.1 Opposite party No.3 received the said amount on 21-4-2005 and delivered the said jeep and assured that they will get fresh registration certificate on the in
their name as it was registered in the name of The complainant kept the jeep at his residence in ideal without plying the same on the road. Opposite party No.3 applied for fresh registration of the said jeep in the office of opposite party NO.4, but it was not considered by R.T.O., The opposite parties postponed the issuance of fresh registration certificate on one or other Due to non changing of Registration certificate and insurance in the name of the complainant he sustained loss of Rs.500/- per day, total amounting to Rs.124-09-2005. The complainant got issued legal notice to The complainant sustained loss due to negligence and deficiency of service of opposite parties. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint.
Opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed their Written Version denying all the contents of the complaint and further they stated that it is not at all their business to register the vehicle in the name of the complainant and as already mentioned in the contents that it is the duty of the complainant himself only that he has to get the registration of the vehicle in his name by himself only in the RTO office and further since there is no negligence and deficiency of service on their party, opposite parties are not liable to pay anything as per their contention.
Inspite of service of notice opposite party NO.4 called
The complainant in support of his claim filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of opposite parties 1 to On behalf of opposite parties 1 to
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
It is clear that on the basis of
After arguments of both side counsels, our reasons are like this:
It is clear that on the basis of Ex.B-2 at Column No.4 it is clear that the registration certificate for the above vehicle has to be obtained by So as per Column NO.4 in Ex.B-2 it is clear that the complainant he himself has to got register the vehicle in his name from RTO with his own expenses, does not the duty of opposite parties 1 to 3 to get the registration of the vehicle in the name of the complainant. Further in Clause NO.3 in Ex.B-2 it is also clear that All statutory taxes including Motor vehicle tax, state permit, National Permit, Insurance is to be borne by the complainant and as such it does not form part of the sale value, further the fitness certificate for the above vehicle is applicable has to be arranged by complainant and it does not form part of the sale price. So as per Clause No.3 also it is clear that all statutory taxes including motor vehicle tax, state permit,
It is true As per the contention of the opposite parties, the opposite parties will give only NO Objection Certificate. For remaining things as per clause No.3 and 4 it is the duty of the complainant he himself take RC book from RTO after producing the fitness certificate before RTO.
The opposite parties have sold out the seized stock vehicle to the complainant herein as per the provisions of Law and under certain terms and conditions and had delivered the said vehicle to the complainant herein after receiving the erstwhile said amount in token thereof.
To show that in Ex.B-2 terms and conditions he received the said copy and accepted the said letter and signed on it on 24-1-2005 so already the terms and conditions received by the complainant itself.
We accept the arguments of opposite parties because they stated clearly that the opposite party is a Reputed Registered Private Company as per the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Chennai and the opposite party NO.1 company is having various branches in India and abroad including one of such branches in
herein has received and accepted the same, therefore in token thereof this opposite party again has issued a receipt addressing to the complainant on 24-1-2005 in token of receiving the sale consideration through D.D. and they handed over the original keys and the receipt on the same day and subsequently the No Objection Certificate of the vehicle was also given to the complainant.
The complainant instead of proceeding to the office of RTA, the opposite party herein with an intention of ending litigation’s has on humanitarian grounds has made an application before the RTA, ich was refused by RTA vide Memo NO.419/A4/2005, as such the opposite party has advised the complainant to take legal action against the RTA Even then, the RTA,
Whatever the opposite parties stated in supra we accept the same we do not find out any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and further it is the duty of the complainant he has
to take legal action against RTA because he ought to have take legal action against RTA, since the opposite parties have discharged all its obligations as under the Motor Vehicle Act Rules and Hire Purchase Agreement Rules and regulations instead of that he has
The duty of the opposite parties is that as per the terms and conditions i.e., Ex.B-2 they have to issue “No Objection Certificate” to the complainant after that as per Ex.B-2 the complainant he himself has to do and he himself has to take care of his vehicle When the terms and conditions are there, and complainant he himself received the same terms and conditions after the duty of the complainant is that he has to comply all the terms and conditions by himself only but not opposite parties.
With regard to the negligence and deficiency of service of the opposite parties, we already stated supra that we did not find out anything from the opposite parties. Since we did not find out any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, certainly there is no any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.
For the foregoing reasons given by us we come to the conclusion that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, accordingly we answered this point in
Point No.2: To what relief:- The first point is decided in
In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 30th June, 2008).
In the result this complaint is dismissed, but without costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 30th June, 2008).
Member Member President,
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
