ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                        JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party No.1 for supply the quotation and registration documents of the Tractor and direct the opposite party No.2 for supply of the account statement and also direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-”.

            The brief fact of the case is that, the complainant has purchased a Tractor of New Holland for agriculture operation from the opposite party No.1 and the financial assistance of opposite party No.2 on 27.7.2016 and the opposite party No.1 delivered the tractor on 31.7.2016 for consideration of Rs.7,28,000/-. Out of the said amount Rs.90,000/- has been discounted from the total value of the tractor and Rs.40,000/- has been deducted towards prize of a motor cycle. So there is sum of Rs.5,98,000/- and out of the said amount the petitioner incurred loan from the opposite party No.2 of Rs.60,000/-. So after deducting the loan amount complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,38,000/- towards down payment and thereafter the opposite party No.1 collected a sum of Rs.15,500/- towards insurance, Rs.13,000/- towards RTO registration, Rs.9,000/- towards bank expenses and Rs.6,250/- towards tax of the traller but no traller has been delivered to the complainant. The complainant under the instruction by the opposite party No.1 that the tractor has duly registered before the RTO but with a dishonest intention has not registered the vehicle and has not issued the registration certificate. Since the date of purchase the vehicle is standing unused as a result of which tyre became damage due to pressure and when the complainant brought the tractor to the garage for filling the pressure in the tyre the RTO impose fine of Rs.6,000/- on the complainant. Due to nonpayment of registration fees before the RTO there is a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is outstanding against the tractor towards tax and fine. The matter is stood thus the complainant demanded the account statement of his loan to the opposite party No.2 but they refused to supply the same rather threat ended the complainant to repossess the tractor from the possession.

            After received registered notice from this Commission the opposite party No.1 enter his appearance through Advocate but not filed written version, hence set ex-parte on 19.4.2022.   

            Opposite party No.2 has filed his reply stating as under;

            The opposite party No.2 being the financier and the loan agreement having been executed by the complainant with opposite party No.2 for repayment of the capital and interest in stipulated period and the allegations having been made as against opposite party No.2 has got no role to play in the matter. The opposite party No.2 is ready and willing to file the account statement of the complainant before this Hon’ble Commission.  

            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 given his written version in this proceeding. As per section 41 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 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, Cuttack, STA, Cuttack and Secretary Transport and Vigilance Department to enquire about non registration of particularly tractors in RTO, Cuttack 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 2 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 shall not press hard to repay the loan and repossess the vehicle at least for six months after registration of vehicle.