DATE OF FILING : 31.03.2014.
DATE OF S/R : 14.05.2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 04.11.2015.
Sk. Abdul Mokaddesh,
son of Sk. Abdul Mannaf,
residing at village Naikuli, P.O. Munshirhat, P.S. J.B. Pur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711410. ………………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
1. Royal Motors ( prop. Auto Carriage Pvt. Ltd., )
situated at 135A, S.P. Mukherjee Road,
Kolkata 700026.
2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,
having its office at 7, Kyd Street, 3rd floor,
Kolkata 700016.
3. Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Service Ltd.,
having its office at Infinity Benchmark, 8th floor,
Plot no. G1, Block EP & GP, Sector V, Saltlake,
Kolkata 700091.
4. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India,
Munshirhat Branch, situated at village Shankarhati, P.O. Munshirhat,
P.S. J.B. Pur, District Howrah,
PIN 711410.………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Sk. Abdul Mokaddesh against Royal Motors and three others praying for directing the o.p. nos. 1& 2 namely, Royal Motors and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. to assist the petitioner to obtain certificate of fitness from the vehicle authority alternatively replace the Maxximo Vehicle by a new one and also directing the o.p. no. 3, Mahindra Finance Ltd., not to charge the the rest EMIs from the petitioner and to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- per day for not plying the said vehicle from 22.10.2013 till issuance of fitness certificate and also directing the o.ps. to pay compensation of Rs. 17 lakhs and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs.
- The case of the petitioner is that he is an unemployed person and for maintenance of his livelihood by way of self employment purchased one Maxximo Diesel white colour vehicle being engine no. MCB 6B 10999 from the o.p. no. 1, Royal Motors, on 19.10.2011 for plying the said car on road on hire basis for maintaining livelihood of his and his family members. The price of the vehicle was Rs. 5,20,678/- and at the time of purchase the petitioner paid payment of Rs. 1,20,000/- and there was a balance which was paid by o.p. no. 3 as financer and the petitioner paid regular E.M.Is. through his banker S.B.I. Munshirhat Branch. The o.p. no. 1 issued the sale certificate along with vehicle identification number and engine number and the petitioner accepted this documents in good faith and took the vehicle and subsequently got the vehicle registered with the registering authority being registration no. WB 11B 7665 and incurred an expenses of Rs. 15,670/- for insurance and Rs. 22,000/- for body making.
3. In order to ply the goods vehicle the petitioner needed the certificate of registration as well as certificate of fitness and the Motor Vehicle Authority scrutinizing the documents informed the petitioner that the vehicle is not entitled to have certificate of fitness as the chassis being no. MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16672 is different from the registration of certificate wherein mentioned MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16872. Thus one denomination changed in the registration from the chassis no. i.e., ‘8’ in place of ‘6’. The petitioner went to the o.p. no. 1 who intentionally mentioned the wrong chassis no. and thus the certificate of fitness was withheld by the M.V.A. Thus in spite of making full payment the o.p. nos. 1 & 2 deliberately failed to handover the correct sale certificate bearing vehicle identification no. and the petitioner approached o.p. no. 1 several times and both o.p. nos. 1 & 2 neglected to perform their duty which amounted to deficiency in service on their part as they failed to rectify the mistakes the petitioner suffered huge loos and so filed this case with the above prayers.
4. The o.p. no. 1 contested the case by filing a written versions denying the allegations made in the petition of complaint and submitted that the petitioner never attended the office of the o.p. no. 1 for rectification and so the case be dismissed against them. They further submitted that the o.p. no. 1 issued the sale certificate wherein the representative of the o.p. no. 1 made a clerical mistake whereby the chassis no. of the vehicle was mentioned as MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16872. The registration authority without making any physical verification got the same registered. This petitioner also did not physically verify the details of the chassis number etc. but the complainant neither approached the registration authority nor approached the o.p. no. 1 for issuance of a fresh certificate and filed this case before Forum.
5. Notices were served. The o.p. no. 1 appeared and contested the case. But the rest o.ps. i.e., o.p. nos. 2 to 4 did not appear and contest the case. So the case was heard on contest against the o.p. no. 1 and ex parte against the rest.
6. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
- All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case the petitioner filed affidavit of evidence as well as his bank statement being the statement issued by S.B.I. Munshirhat Branch showing payment of monthly installments by petitioner. The petitioner also filed his sale certificate issued by the o.p. no. 1, Royal Motors, showing the vehicle identification number wrongly and the last three digits being 872 in place of 672 and accordingly the insurance certificate was also issued mentioning the chassis no. as 872 in place of 672 as well as the registration certificate by Government Department. In his petition the petitioner submitted that he approached the vehicle department for registration as well as certificate of fitness but the department denied in issuing the same fitness certificate as the chassis number was wrong being MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16872 instead of MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16672 though the Government issued registration certificate. It is further noticed that the petitioner approached the o.p. n. 1, Royal Motors, on 13.11.2013 to take necessary action so that he gets the fitness certificate of the vehicle from the authority. The o.p. no. 1 though filed written version but not filed any document that they issued the correct sale certificate so that on the basis of the sale certificate as well as on proper verification of the chassis number, the later documents got issued. It is clear latches on the part of the o.p. no. 1 who issued the sale certificate on 19.10.2011 though the insurance authority as well as the Government Authority issuing the insurance policy and registration certificate also issued the said documents on the basis of the chassis number mentioned in the sale certificate without physical proper verification of the number inscribed in the body of the vehicle.
- This Forum considers all the original documents filed by the petitioner namely the registration certificate. That the vehicle was registered on 15.10.2011 and tax token showing that year wise tax was paid for 2012/13 and 2013/14 and also the pollution certificate and other documents which showed that the vehicle no. mentioned in all the documents being the last three digits 872 though actually it ought to have been 672. As the competent authority did not issue the fit certificate, so the petitioner approached before this Forum who did need a fit certificate two years after purchase. Thus there is no fault on the part of the petitioner to get the registration certificate with valid chassis number as well as the fit certificate and other relevant documents. It is true that there is deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 but the other o.ps. like the R.T.A. and others cannot deny their responsibility in not making physical verification of the chassis number inscribed in the body of the vehicle. The petitioner with his hard-earned money purchased the vehicle and now he has been deprived of running the vehicle on the road without fit certificate after the expiry of two years of purchase for which not only the o.p. no. 1, Royal Motors but also the Motor Vehicle Department specifically registering authority of Howrah who is responsible because they all completed papers works without physical verification of the vehicle specially the chassis number which actually MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16672 instead of MA1 FA2 MCRB 6B 16872. It is noticed from the documents of the petitioner that he approached the o.p. no. 1 for issuing a correct sale certificate as seen from his documents dated 13.11.2013 and in spite of the receiving the same o.p. no. 1 instead of taking steps to help the petitioner simply kept quite and the same act and conduct of the o.p. no. 1 also amounted deficiency in service as the same act of o.p. no. 1 led non availability of fitness certificate by the petitioner. Thus keeping in mind the sufferings of the petitioner since 13.11.2013 till date and the prayer for compensation if allowed to be borne by the o.p. no. 1 who practically issued sale certificate with wrong vehicle identification no. and chassis number and also later on took no steps in correcting the same approaching the authority.
In view of above discussion and findings thisForum finds that the petitioner has been able to prove his case and thus the claim succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 172 of 2014 ( HDF 172 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. no. 1 and without cost against the rest.
The petitioner is entitled to get corrected sale certificate mentioning the correct engine number and chassis number and others and also entitled to a correct registration certificate from the R.T.A. who is to replace the present one by issuing a new one and also to issue fitness certificate to the petitioner on the basis of the correct sale certificate after proper verification of the vehicle being duly approached and applied by the petitioner who is also entitled to compensation for a sum in lump sum being Rs. 5 lakhs and the o.p. no. 1 do pay the same within 30 days from the date of this order for the loss incurred by petitioner for years. All the compliances of the order be made by the parties and authorities within two months from the date of passing this order. The petitioner is also entitled to litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/- which be paid by the o.p. no. 1 within 30 days from the date of this order failing the petitioner is to put the order in execution.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
