KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.485/06 JUDGMENT DATED 28.10.09 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. Koyenko Motors, Kozhikode, Rep. by its Managing Director. 2. Manager, -- APPELLANTS Koyenko motors, West Fort, Thrissur. (By Adv.S.Reghukumar) 1. Narghese, Daughter of Aboobaker Haji, Jameelalayam, Chirakkal, Thrissur rep. by her Power-of-attorney Holder Aboobaker Haji Jameelalayam, Chirakkal, Thrissur. 2. R.T.O. -- RESPONDENTS Thrissur R.T.O.Office, Thrissur. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellants are the opposite parties 1 and 2 in OP.964/01 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants/dealers of Indica car under orders to pay sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- as costs to the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Tata Indica Car in September 2000 on payment of Rs.3,35,411/-. It was the dealer who got the car registered and R.C handed over to him. It was found in the R.C that the manufacturing year of the car is January 1999. There is a difference in price of Rs.35,000/- for the cars manufactured in 2000. It should be less for the car manufactured in 1999 and depreciation cost of Rs.1,25,000/-. He has claimed the same. 3. It is the contention of the appellants/opposite parties 1 and 2 that in fact the above car was manufactured in August 2000. They have also produced the copy of Gazette notification wherein the marks that are to be inscribed in the engine and chassis of the cars manufactured in the year 2000 is seen. It is denied that it was the appellants who registered the vehicle. It is alleged that the mistake was committed by the opposite party No.3 the R.T.O. 4. In the version of opposite party No.3, it is admitted that it was a mistake. It is also pointed out that the vehicle has been sold by the complainant to another person on 1.10.04. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 to P5 and R1 to R3. 6. The Forum has found that the RTO incorporated the particulars in the RC book as per the information provided by the appellants. Of course, as pointed out by the counsel for the appellants the third opposite party RTO has admitted that it was a mistake. Hence, the above finding is clearly incorrect. We find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/dealers. It is the prevailing practice that the registration of the new vehicle sold etc. is done through the dealer. Hence the appellants ought to have at least taken the initiative to get the mistake corrected. Evidently, the resale value of the vehicle would have considerably as the manufacturing year is shown as 1999. It was submitted by the counsel for the appellant that correction has been effected subsequently by the third opposite party at their own initiative. 7. There was no representation for the respondent/complainant. 8. In the circumstances, the amount of compensation ordered by the Forum is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The order with respect to cost is sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as above. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
