BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No: 480/2004 Filed on 31..12..2004<br /> Dated: 30..06..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> Babu George, T.C. 14/302, Poonthi Road, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Adv. Sri. Koliacode K. Rajeev)<br /> <br /> Opposite parties:<br /> <br /> 1.Regional Transport Officer, RT Office, Transport Bhavan, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> (By Sri. Paraniyam Devakumar)<br /> <br /> 2.Jayasree, w/o Rajendran Nair, Ettam Kallu, Near Devi Auditorium, Karakulam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> 3.Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Ramakrishna Building, Aristo Junction, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram. Rep. By its Manager.<br /> (By Adv. Sri.V. Manikantan Nair)<br /> 4.Jagannathan, s/o Nanu, Arunodhayam, Gandhipuram, Sreekariam, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 16..05..2008, the Forum on 30..06..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had purchased a Maruthi Car bearing No.KL-01 M 2443 from the 4th opposite party during the month of September 2004 which was registered at the Thiruvananthapuram RTO and the complainant had changed the ownership of the said vehicle in his name through the 1st opposite party. On 07..12..2004, while he parked the above said vehicle at the parking area of Sreekanteswaram Temple, Thiruvananthapuram, it was found that another Maruthi Van was parked in the nearby area bearing same registration No. ie. KL-01 M 2443. Complainant made a detailed enquiry regarding the matter and verified all the documents and registration formalities of his vehicle and he filed a petition before Sub Inspector of Police, Nedumangad Police Station regarding the matter on 07..12..2004 itself. The Nedumangad Police Station authorities took custody of both the said vehicles and registered a case regarding the matter as Crime No.877/2004 U/S 102 Cr.P.C and reported the said matter before the Hon'ble Judicial 1st Class Magistrate Court-II, Nedumangad. The registration numbering for duplicating the said two vehicles occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st opposite party and original registration number of the vehicle belonging to the 2nd opposite party is KL-01 M 2444 and because of the careless and negligent act of the 1st opposite party, the registration number of the complainant's vehicle KL-01 M 2443 had been given to the 2nd opposite party. The number allotted to the previous owner of the complainant's vehicle was in the year 1996 October and the same number was allotted to the 2nd opposite party during the initial period of 1997. The vehicle of the complainant was kept in the open air of Nedumangad Police Station for a period of 16 days which caused the colour fade, unnatural wear and tear and other mechanical failures which forced the complaint to spent an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the release of the vehicle from the police which includes his legal expenses also. The complainant lost 14 working days because he had to run after the formalities for release of his vehicle and had caused the loss of Rs.7,500/-. Hence this complaint claiming compensation from the 1st opposite party along with costs.<br /> 2. 1st opposite party filed their version contending as follows: The vehicle DAV No.2879 (Motor Car) originally registered at Registering Authority, South Zone, Delhi had been brought to Kerala by registered owner Sri. N. Jaganandan, B,164, AV Nagar, New Delhi and applied for re-assignment of registration mark and for noting change of address. Accordingly change of address was noticed as Jagananthan.N, Arunodayam, Gandhipuram, Sreekariam and the vehicle was re-assigned as KL.01/M 2443 with effect from 26..02..1997. Later the vehicle was transferred to the name of the complainant Sri. Babu George, S/o Varkey, TC 14/302, Poonthi Road, Kumarapuram w.e.f 15..09..2004. Later another motor car with the same Reg. No. ie. KL.01/M.2443 has been noticed and that vehicle stands registered in the name of Smt.Jayasree. Since the registration No. of this vehicle has also been issued from this office (RTO,Tvpm.) records of registration of both the vehicles were examined. The second vehicle was originally registered at Madras as TCK 5123 and re-assigned in RTO., Thiruvananthapuram as KL.01/M 2444 by transferring the vehicle to the name of Smt. R. Ambika Devi. Eventhough the Reg.No. of this vehicle was correctly written as KL.01/M 2444 in the office records the same was wrongly written as KML.01/M 2443 in the RC by clerical mistake. This was the fact behind the duplication of the registration number. This mistake was not committed deliberately and had happened due to over sight. In the office records the entries are made correct and if it was otherwise, the mistake could have been found out earlier. The petitioner is not the real aggrieved party, he has no right to make the complaint before the Hon'ble Forum regarding the allegation in the petition since the registered number of the complainant's vehicle had no change and so he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed in the complaint. Hence 1st opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. 3rd opposite party filed their version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not known to this opposite party and this opposite party is an unnecessary party to this proceedings. In order to resolve the dispute between the complainant and 1st opposite party, this opposite party is not at all a necessary party. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint alongwith compensation and costs of this opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4.Opposite parties 2 & 4 remain ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 were marked on his side. Opposite parties have no evidence.<br /> <br /> 6. The issues that would arise for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether the act of the 1st opposite party justifiable?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for?<br /> <br /> 7. Point No.(i): There is admittedly a duplication with regard to the registration number of the vehicle. According to the 1st opposite party eventhough the Reg.No.of the vehicle was correctly written as KL.01/M 2444 in the office records the same was wrongly written as KL.01/M 2443 in the RC book by clerical mistake, and this mistake was not deliberate but happened due to over sight. The 1st opposite party further contends that the complainant is not the real aggrieved party since the registration number of the complainant's vehicle had no correction or change and so he is not entitled to get any relief. It is true that there is no correction with regard to the registration number of the complainant's vehicle. But the fact to be looked into is, whether the complainant was made to suffer or whether the complainant had to undergo any difficulties due to the acts of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party has admitted that the Police authorities of Nedumangad Police Station had taken possession of both the vehicles since these vehicles seemed to be suspicious with same registration number. The complainant submits that his vehicle was kept in the open air of Nedumangad Police Station for a period of 16 days. At this juncture, the contention of the 1st opposite party that the complainant has no right to make the complaint before this Forum since the registration number of the complainant's vehicle had no change is acceptable and whether it is justifiable? The duplication of number is certainly a mistake on the part of the 1st opposite party but every mistake cannot be stated to be deficiency in service. But this mistake had not only caused the complainant unnecessary sufferings as to run after the formalities for releasing his vehicle from the police custody but also made him suffer a great deal of shock and mental agony and expense. One can understand the condition of the complainant at that time when one puts himself in the place of the complainant. In the above circumstance we do not think any more thing is required to hold that the complainant has to be compensated for the act of the 1st opposite party.<br /> <br /> 2. Point No.(ii): The complainant has claimed Rs.10,000/- towards the expense incurred for servicing his vehicle as it was kept in the open air of Nedumangad Police Station. There is no document corroborating the said expense. The complainant further claims Rs.75,000/- towards loss of 14 working days because, he had to run after the formalities of his vehicle along with Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Considering the circumstances and the records on file, we are of the view that an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the 1st opposite party would be reasonable compensation for the unwanted sufferings of the complainant. Complainant has no claim against opposite parties 2 and 4 and hence opposite parties 2 & 4 are exempted from any liability.<br /> <br /> In the result, the 1st opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation along with an amount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) towards costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the amount shall carry interest at 12% from the date of the order.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.<br /> <br /> <br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> ad.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O.P.No. 480/2004<br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I.Complainant's witness:<br /> PW1 : Babu George<br /> <br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> Ext. P1 : Attested copy of the R.C Book of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-M-2443<br /> <br /> Ext.P2 : Attested copy of Insurance Certificate of the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.<br /> Ext.P3 : Photocopy of FIR No.877 dated 07..12..2004 of Sub Inspector, Nedumangad Police Station.<br /> <br /> Ext.P4 : Original Registration particulars of KL-01- M-2443 issued by RTO, Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> Ext.P5 : Photocopy of certificate of regitration dated 16..01..89<br /> <br /> III.Opposite parties' witness: NIL<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite parties' documents: NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br />