Kerala

Malappuram

CC/7/2013

C. VELAYUDHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
MALAPPURAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/7/2013
 
1. C. VELAYUDHAN
CHIRAKAL VEETIL,KARAD POST,VANIYAMBALAM (VIA) WANDOOR
MALAPPURAM DIST-679 339
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER
CIVIL STATION ,MALAPPURAM
MALAPPURAM DIST
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMEDALI K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. MADANAVALLY RK MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MINI MATHEW MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President,

 

 

1. The case of the complainant is that, when he approached the office of the opposite party, for renewal of the Registration Certificate of his Scooter No.KL10/F-9760 on 14-12-2012, the opposite party demanded Rs.2,160/- including the compounding fee, since the last date of Registration was already over on 12-12-2012. It is further alleged that the renewal date has not been entered in the Registration Certificate Book. The request of the complainant to exempt the compounding fee was not considered by the opposite party. The complainant states that he is regularly remitting the taxes and insurance of the vehicle without any default, and he is a law abiding citizen, a Senior Citizen, never indented to violate the rules. The delay of one day was excusable but opposite party was adamant in his approach. It was the fault of the opposite party, who failed to inform the date of renewal of the Registration Certificate and thus, the opposite party is deficient in service.

 

    2. Opposite party filed detailed version denying all the averments in the complaint. Opposite party states that there was no latches on the side of the opposite party. The registration shall be valid only for a period of fifteen years. Here the date of registration is on 12-12-1997. An application for the renewal of the Registration Certificate shall be made to the Registering Authority, not more than sixty days before the date of expiry. If he had any doubt he could have enquired it from the office either in person or by an authorised person. The opposite party contends that the fine amount for using the vehicle without valid Registration is Rs.2,000/- and the renewal fee is Rs.160/-. So no deficiency in service.

     

      3. The main question that arises for consideration is:-

        1. (i) Whether the opposite party is deficient in service, by not informing the complainant sufficiently early about the renewal of Registration Certificate.

          (ii) Relief if any.

           

        4. Point No.(i) & (ii):-

         

          Section 41(7) of Central Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 stipulates that a Certificate of Registration issued under sub Section (3) of Motor Vehicle Act shall be valid only for a period of fifteen years from the date of issue. Here the date of Registration is on 12-12-1997. As per rules 52 of CMV Rules, 1989, an application for the renewal of the Registration Certificate shallbe made to the registering authority in Form 25 not more than sixty days before the date of expiry. The Government of Kerala has enhanced the compound Fee as Rs.2,000/- for using the vehicle without valid registration. The Renewal fee is Rs.160/-. So demanding to remit Rs.2,160/- for the belated renewal of the said vehicle will not amount to a deficiency in service.

           

            5. This Forum feels sympathy to the complainant, a Senior Citizen, who must have suffered much mental agony, since there was only one day's delay in renewal of Registration Certificate, he was asked to remit Rs.2,000/- as fine. Even though the Senior Citizen Act and the Rules 27 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 provides special privileges to Senior Citizens and thereby the Nation honour them. No provision is seen enacted in the Motor Vehicle Act to show some leniency to a poor man who is using a 1997 Model Scooter for his day to day life. This Forum has no other way and only to dismiss the complaint. So complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

             

              Dated this 16th day of May, 2014.

              1. sd/-

              K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

              sd/-

              R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

              sd/-

              MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

               

              APPENDIX

              Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

              Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

              Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

              Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

               

              sd/-

              K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT

              sd/-

              R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER

              sd/-

              MINI MATHEW, MEMBER

               
               
              [HON'BLE MR. MOHAMMEDALI K]
              PRESIDENT
               
              [HON'BLE MS. MADANAVALLY RK]
              MEMBER
               
              [HON'BLE MRS. MINI MATHEW]
              MEMBER

              Consumer Court Lawyer

              Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

              Bhanu Pratap

              Featured Recomended
              Highly recommended!
              5.0 (615)

              Bhanu Pratap

              Featured Recomended
              Highly recommended!

              Experties

              Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

              Phone Number

              7982270319

              Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.