BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 515/2014 Filed on 29.12.2014
ORDER DATED: 28.04.2017
Complainant:
Manoj Kumar. K, S/o Krishnankutty Nair, T.C 13/1765, Suresh Bhavan, Murinjapalam, Medical College Post, Thiruvananthapuram-695 011.
(By Adv. Nandakumar. A)
Opposite party:
M/s Two Wheeler Exchange Shoppe, Deedi Automobiles Building, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram-40 represented by its Manager.
(By Adv. Ajith S. Nair)
This case having been heard on 07.03.2017, the Forum on 28.04.2017 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that complainant on 02.05.2005 exchanged his T.V.S Victor Motor Cycle through the opposite party and purchased new vehicle in his name. At the time of exchanging the vehicle all formalities for transferring the old vehicle to any prospective buyer was made by the complainant and it was assured by the opposite party that the vehicle will be sold to prospective buyers after transferring R.C owner’s name only and it being a practice complainant handed over the vehicle to the opposite party. On 25.11.2014 complainant received a notice from S.I of police, Parassala to appear before him in connection with a case with regard to the vehicle exchanged through the opposite party. That the rider of the above vehicle was asked to stop by the S.I without complying the order the rider hitting on the hand of the officer driven away and a criminal case was registered. Since the vehicle was sold by the opposite party without changing owner’s name, complainant was directed to be present on 09.12.2014 and upon his explanation complainant was to trace out the purchaser of said vehicle from the opposite party and produce before the concerned officer. From them it was understood that the said vehicle was sold to one Mr. Sukumaran Nair, Vilaveettil Vilakam, Puthen House, Mavarthalakonam, Nalanchira, Trivandrum. Then it is understood that he also, without changing the name, have sold said vehicle and is driving by a person whose details are not known. Complainant has sustained mental pain, agony, and monetary loss due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party was duty bound to sell the vehicle only after transferring the vehicle in the name of the purchaser. Without doing so, the opposite party has committed gross negligence and deficiency in service which resulted in monetary loss, mental pain and agony. Hence complainant approached this Forum for compensation and to change the ownership to the present owner’s name.
Notice sent to opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed version. As per the version of opposite party the complaint is barred by limitation as well. The transaction between the complainant and the opposite party took place on 02.05.2005. Thereafter there were no relations or transaction between the complainant and opposite party. Therefore the complaint is barred by limitation and the same deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. This opposite party is an independent establishment engaged in the business of purchasing and selling of used two wheelers. The person who wishes to sell out their two wheelers can approach this opposite party and this opposite party will purchase the said vehicle from them and thereafter sold to other prospective buyers. The relationship between the persons and this opposite party is that of seller and buyer and no other relationship can be attributed to this opposite party. The complainant was also paid the due value of the old vehicle of Rs. 24,650/- and the complainant has accepted the same. No new vehicles are being sold by this opposite party. It is true that this opposite party has purchased the vehicle of the complainant for further sale to prospective buyers. No promise was made to the complainant as alleged. It is submitted that as per the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability rest with the owner of the vehicle to change the owner’s name in the registration books of the vehicle. The complainant cannot escape from his liability under the guise of practice. The complainant has approached this opposite party to give a letter regarding the purchase of the vehicle by this opposite party and further sale of the vehicle and accordingly this opposite party has issued a letter to the complainant narrating the details of transaction. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. This opposite party has not provided any service on payment basis to the complainant. This opposite party only purchases the vehicle of the complainant by paying the due value of the vehicle. There is no cause of action for the complainant to make any claim as against this opposite party. No cause of action has arisen on 25.11.2014 against this opposite party.
Issues:
- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Issues (i) to (iii):- Complainant filed chief examination affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 marked. Complainant cross examined by opposite party. PW1 cross examined by opposite party. In the deposition of PW1 he deposed that “നിങ്ങളും O.P-യും തമ്മില് ഉപഭോക്തൃ ബന്ധം ഇല്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q) അറിയില്ല (A) നിങ്ങള് പരാതി യില് പറയുന്ന OP-ക്ക് നിങ്ങള് ഒരു രൂപയും ഒരിനത്തിലും നല്കിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q) ശരിയാണ് (A) MV Act പ്രകാരം വാഹനത്തിന്റെ പേര് മാറ്റാനുള്ള ബാധ്യത registered owner- ക്ക് അല്ലേ (Q) ആണ് (A) ഏതെങ്കിലും കാലയളവില് MV Department-ല് നിങ്ങളുടെ വാഹനം കൈമാറ്റം ചെയ്ത വിവരം നിങ്ങള് അറിയിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടോ (Q) ഇല്ല (A). ഈ കൈമാറ്റവും കച്ചവടവും നടന്നത് 2005-ല് അല്ലേ (Q) അതെ (A) 2005-നു ശേഷം ഞാനും OP-യുമായി യാതൊരു ഇടപാടും നടന്നിട്ടില്ല (A) OP നിങ്ങള്ക്ക് യാതൊരു സേവനവും തന്നിട്ടില്ല എന്നും അതിനു വേണ്ടി ഒരു തുകയും കൈപ്പറ്റിയിട്ടില്ല എന്നും പറയുന്നു (Q) ഇല്ല (A) യാതൊരു അടിസ്ഥാനവുമില്ലാതെ വാഹനം വിറ്റ നിങ്ങള് നിയമപരമായി ചെയ്യേണ്ട കാര്യങ്ങള് ചെയ്യാതെ OP-യുടെ മേല് കുറ്റം ചുമത്തുകയാണ് എന്നു പറയുന്നു (Q) ശരിയാണ് (A) Perused. Heard. The argument put forward by the counsel for the complainant is that what PW1 deposed in the deposition is only a slip of tongue and the complainant was on the bonafide belief that the vehicle would be sold only after getting transferred the ownership in to the prospective buyers as assured by the opposite party. At the same time complainant has not complied his legal duty as per Sec. 50 of Motor Vehicles Act. Sec. 50 Transfer of ownership: “Whether the ownership of any motor vehicle registered under the chapter is transferred (a) the transferor shall (i) in the case of vehicle registered within the same state, within 14 days of the transfer report the fact of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction the transfer would be effected and shall simultaneously send copy of such report to the transferee……………”. We are of the opinion that complaint is barred by limitation and complainant failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence we are inclined to dismiss the complaint without cost.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 28th day of April 2017.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 515/2014
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Manoj Kumar. K
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of notice from Parassala Police Station
P2 - Copy of letter sent by OP to complainant dated 05.12.2014
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
