ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:
JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to complainant for the loss he suffered since dt.06.6.2018 the date of purchase, as the tractor has not been used since then along with 12% interest from the date of purchase till the date of payment and supply the necessary documents for registration of the tractor before the RTO. O.P. No.2 & 3 are direct not to take any further coercive action against the complainant in respect of the tractor and opposite parties are direct to pay Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation fees”.
The brief fact of the case is that, the opposite party No.1 is the trader who sold the tractor to the complainant under agreement to purchase hypothecation and financed by opposite parties No.2 & 3 on 06.6.2018. The cost of the said tractor is Rs.8,68,000/- and out of the said Rs.2,40,000/- was paid as down payment and rest of the amount was financed by the opposite parties No.2 & 3 under an agreement of value of Rs.6,35,000/- which has to be repaid in 55 EMIs. But the complainant has not been provided the copy of the said agreement and arbitrarily fixed Rs.16,935/- per EMI. As the opposite party No.1 has not supplied the necessary documents, the said tractor could not be registered before the RTO till now and started decaying by standing idle in the backyard of the complaint. In the meantime complainant failed to pay 2/3 EMIs to opposite parties No.2 & 3 and they were tried to repossess the said tractor without sanction of law and threatened to repossess the same very soon.
Opposite party No.2 & 3 financers have filed their reply stating as under;
The opposite party No.2 & 3 is a company incorporated under the provision of the Companies Act, 1956. The finance amount is Rs.6,25,000/- and finance charges there on is Rs.3,80,685/- and the agreement value is of Rs.10,05,685/-. The agreement copy was immediately supplied to the complainant after its execution and during these four years the complainant has never raised any dispute. Similarly after making payment of 35 installments the complainant alleges that the EMI amount was fixed arbitrarily. It was duty of the complainant to insist for supply of documents at the time of taking delivery of the tractor or immediately thereafter. But it seems that for last four years the complainant has been negligent in his duty to collect documents from the dealer and get the tractor registered before the concerned RTO and by not doing so he plied the tractor without registration in contravention of the provisions of the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 thereby warranting penal action.
Though notice was issued to opposite party No.1 i.e. the dealer of the vehicle who has sold the vehicle and he has not appeared in this proceeding. As per section 41 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is quoted below;
S.41.Registration,how to be made.-(1)An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.
(Provided further that in the case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in the State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new motor vehicle is being registered in the same state in which the dealer is situated).
It is not at all disputed that the vehicle was purchased from opposite party No.1 and it was to be registered within the State and opposite party No.1 has failed in his duty to register the vehicle is complete violation of Section 41 as quoted above.
Several cases have come to our knowledge regarding non- registration of tractors in rural areas causing loss of revenue to public exchequer for which we direct our registry to send copy of the order to RTO, Jagatsinghpur, STA, Cuttack and Secretary Transport and Vigilance Department to enquire about non registration of particularly tractors in RTO, Jagatsinghpur and necessary steps may be taken to recover the revenue of state exchequer. The role of complainant as hand in gloves cannot be ruled out, as complainant has sat over the matter for 3 and ½ years after purchasing the vehicle and did not make any correspondence to register the vehicle as such complainant is not above suspicion in the racket by plying the vehicle without registration and paying tax to Government exchequer causing loss to public revenue.
Since the opposite party No.1 has failed to register the vehicle with the RTO, we held the opposite party No.1 is negligent in his duty in registering the vehicle and insuring the vehicle which is gross deficiency in service as such we direct the opposite party No.1 to register the vehicle and insure vehicle immediately bearing the entire cost of registration and insurance for such deficiency in service. Opposite party No.2 & 3 shall not press hard to repay the loan and repossess the vehicle at least for six months after registration of vehicle.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this 30th Dec.,2022.
