CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                              Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No 364/09

 

Wednesday the 29^th day of February, 2012

 

Petitioner                                              : Mariamma Abraham,

                                                             Nedumparampil,

                                                             Puthuppally,Kottayam.

                                                             (Adv.Philson Mathews)

 

                                                 

                                                            Vs.

Opposite party                                      : Popular Hyundai,

                                                                Popular World Pvt.Ltd.

                                                                Sastri Road, Thadathil Building,

                                                                Kottayam.

                                                             2) HMIL,

                                                                 South Regional Office,

                                                                 NP 54,Development Plot,

                                                                 Thiruvika Industrial Estate,

                                                                 Ekkduchanval, Chennai.      

 

            The case of the complainant, presented on 2-12-09, is as follows. On 13-11-09 the complainant ordered a Hyundai i10 car and paid Rs.1000/- as advance amount. On 24-11-09 the complainant paid Rs.4,23,778/- as balance purchase amount of the car, as per DD No.261064, dated 24/11/09 of SBT Puthuppally Branch. On 25-11-09 the complainant filed an application for reservation of the registration number and paid Rs.2000/- as fee of reservation. On 26-11-09 the complainant got a registration number KL-05-AA 4311 as per the order No.95323/09 dtd 26-11-09 of Additional Registering Authority Kottayam. The proceedings of the RTA were handed over to the 1^st opposite party immediately. On very same day 1^st opposite party informed that the registration proceeding of the vehicle is already over and another number is allotted. According to the petitioner this was happened only due to the negligent act of 1st opposite party. They try to neglect the petitioner with lame excuse. Due to the improper service of the opposite parties the complainant was not willing to take delivery of vehicle. The complainant is more expected to use the fancy number allotted by the Registering Authority on her vehicle. The 1^st opposite party has no right to register the vehicle unless and otherwise directed by complainant. The opposite parties are liable to deliver the vehicle with Registration number KL-5-AA-4311. The complainant had sustained heavy loss and sufferings. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant. Hence this complaint.

            The notices were served with the opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party alone filed version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. She is not a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant never requested a fancy number for her vehicle and 1^st opposite party never promised her to arrange a fancy number for the vehicle. Since the complainant is residing within the limits of Kottayam Regional Transport Office, 1^st opposite party registered the vehicle there on 25-11-2009. The number allotted to the vehicle was KL-5-AA 4306. This fact was duly intimated to the complainant. Even then complainant failed to take delivery of the vehicle due to some unknown reasons. Then opposite party sent registered letter dtd 30-11-2009 to the complainant to take delivery of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party has no knowledge about the application of the complainant for reservation of the fancy registered number and subsequent order of the Authority on

26-11-2009. The vehicle of the complainant was registered on 25-11-2009.   The 1^st opposite party is not in a position to grant a particular number to any customer. The serial number is allotted by the competent authority and the 1^st opposite party has no role in it. 1^st opposite party is a dealer having Trade Certificate and is bound to register the vehicle before its delivery. No holder of a trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration.   The vehicle was registered by the competent authority as per the request of the complainant, who signed the Form 20 under rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule. The 1^st opposite party is not liable to deliver the vehicle with registration No.KL-5-AA-4311. There is no negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A5 and she was examined as PW1. The 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. B1 to B7 and he was examined as DW1.

            Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that opposite parties have not considered the fancy number allotted to her new vehicle for registration. According to her she had spent Rs.2000/- for fancy registration and the same was intimated to the 1^st opposite party at the time of payment of the vehicle. The 1^st opposite party has taken a contention that they are the dealer and trade certificate holder is bound to register the vehicle before its delivery. According to them (1^st opposite party) No holder of trade certificate shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration. More over the vehicle was registered by the competent authority as per the request of the petitioner who signed the form 20 under section 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rule. From the available documents and evidences from this case the vehicle was already registered by the Registering Authority as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Rule as on 25-11-2009 as KL-5-AA-4306. From the evidence it can be seen that the same vehicle was registered by the registering authority as fancy number as KL-5-AA-4311 on 26-11-2009 by receiving Rs.2000/- as fee for fancy registration charges from the complainant. In the present case complainant has not alleged any mechanical or other complaint regarding the vehicle. The dispute is only with regards to the communication gap in registering the purchased vehicle. The registering authority registered the vehicle of petitioner with a fancy no.KL5-A-4311, on 26/11/09. Prior to registration by the petitioner opposite party registered the same vehicle with another number on 25/11/09. Probably ordinary prudent consumers do not register a vehicle with a fancy number if he had given instruction to the opposite party to register the same. So, from the probabilities it can be seen that case of the opposite party that petitioner herself had given instruction to register the newly purchased vehicle is not much probable. However the complainant had sustained some inconveniences due to the act of the 1^st opposite party as well as the registering authority. The complainant is not aware of the registration done by the 1^st opposite party; she had spent Rs.2000/- additional charges for fancy registration of the vehicle. 1^st opposite party was duty bound to explain the procedure and formalities of registration to its consumer. Consent of the petitioner for registration is to be proper. Petitioner produced a wedding card of her daughter and the same is marked as Ext.A5. From Ext.A5 it can be seen that marriage of daughter of petitioner is on 17/01/2010. Case of petitioner is that the vehicle is purchased with a fancy number to be used on the occasion of marriage of her only daughter. Without saying things be so what had happened may caused much inconvenience, loss and mental agony to the petitioner. In our view act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

            In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. 1^st prayer in the petition is not pressed by the petitioner. We direct the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation for inconveniences and pay Rs.2000/- as costs of these proceedings to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order till payment.

 

 

 Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                   Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

Appendix

Ext.A1-is the copy of corporate discount form

Ext.A2-is the copy of receipt dtd 24/11/09

Ext.A3-is the cash receipt dtd 25-11-09

Ext.A4-is the copy of proceedings by registering authority Kottayam dtd 26/11/09

Ext.A5-is the marriage invitation card

Ext.B1-is the copy of car loan details of bank draft dt 24-11-09

Ext.B2-is the vehicle data sheet dt 25-11-09

Ext.B3-is the copy of certificate of registration

Ext.B4-is the copy of tax token

Ext.B5-is the copy of letter dtd 30-11-09

Ext.B6 and Ext.B(a) are the postal A/D cards

Ext.B7-is the copy of vehicle delivery note and gate pass dt 7/4/10.

 

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.