BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C No: 159/2008 Filed on 17/7/08 Dated : 15..03..2010
Complainant:
K. Shambhu, Kannamma Nilayam, T.C.27/1002, Vanchiyoor – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 35. (By Adv. G. Sreedharan Nair) Opposite party: Regional Transport Officer, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Sri. Paraniyam Devakumar) This O.P having been heard on 15..01..2010, the Forum on 15..03..2010 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
This complaint has been filed by one Mr. K. Shambhu against the Regional Transport Officer and his grievance is as follows: The complainant is the owner of the Auto rickshaw bearing Registration No. KBV 1957 having City permit and he filed a joint application with Ayyappan, Kulathinkara Veedu, No.994, Palkulangara, Thiruvananthapuram for transfer of ownership and permit on 31/1/2008 before the Office of the opposite party and remitted Rs. 350/- towards fees for the above purpose. Normally this would have been done within 7 days. Complainant visited the office of the opposite party several times, but he was asked to come again and again by the officials under the opposite party without any justifications. Complainant submitted all the papers relating to the Auto rickshaw including its R.C book along with the application, as a result of which he could not take the Auto rickshaw on the road for hire, resulting loss of income every day and deprivation of his livelihood. Due to the inordinate delay, the person who agreed to purchase the vehicle withdrew from the deal. The officials concerned directed the complainant to remit another Rs. 500/- towards compounding fee and finally the officials returned the records of the vehicle on 4/6/2008. Thus the vehicle was kept idle from 31/1/2008 to 4/6/2008 ie., after 125 days. In the meanwhile, complainant visited the opposite party's office several times. They said one reason or the other for not effecting the transfer after having received the fees and the records of the vehicle. Opposite party failed to do the same for no fault of the complainant. There is failure of service from the side of the opposite party and its officials with the deliberate view to harass the complainant. Thus complainant has suffered loss, mental strain, physical discomfort due to the act of the opposite party and hence this complaint for realising Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party towards compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part.
2. Opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The vehicle Auto rickshaw KBV – 1957 stands registered in the name of Shri. K. Shambhu, S/o Kochukrishnan Nair, Gokulam, T.C.69/1893, Thiruvallam, Thiruvananthapuram. The vehicle is having City permit No. 6500/1990 valid up to 25/12/2010. Tax in respect of the vehicle is paid upto 30/9/2008. The vehicle has valid Certificate of Fitness up to 26/9/2008. The registered owner of the vehicle Sri. K. Shambhu and the proposed purchaser one Sri. Ayyappan has filed joint application for Transfer of Permit remitting the prescribed fee of Rs.350/- on 31/1/2008. Both the applicants were summoned for a Personal Hearing and they were heard on 10/4/2008. At the time of hearing the registered owner accepted that the vehicle was sold and delivered two months ago to Sri. Ayyappan and the purchaser also accepted the transaction. As per Section 82 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the Transport Authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised the permit. In the above circumstances a detailed enquiry was made through the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector of this office regarding the genuineness of the version of the applicant and possession of the vehicle. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector in his report stated that the address of the purchaser recorded in the application is not genuine and it is revealed that in T.C.29/994, Kulathinkara Veedu, Palkulangara which is given as the purchaser's address for Transfer of Permit are residing the family of Sri. Mohandas (late) for last three years. Hence the illegal transaction of the vehicle to bogus address is for tax evasion and for using the vehicle for antisocial activities. In the meantime, Sri. K. Shambhu, the registered owner, requested to cancel the sale agreement and return the records of the vehicle to him. In the circumstances, Rs.500/- was compounded for violation of permit conditions and registration certificate and other documents returned to him on proper acknowledgment on 4/6/2008. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Complainant and opposite party filed affidavits in lieu of chief examination. Complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P8 and opposite party has been examined as DW1 and marked Exts. D1 to D6.
4. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? If the above is in affirmative, to what amount is the complainant entitled?
5. Points (i) & (ii): The grievance of the complainant is that, though he had submitted all the papers relating to his auto rickshaw including its R.C book along with the application for transfer of ownership and permit on 31/1/2008, the opposite party asked the complainant to come again and again and delayed it and due to such inordinate delay the person who agreed to purchase the vehicle withdrew from the deal. Besides this the complainant was also directed to remit Rs. 500/- towards compounding fee and finally the officials returned the records of the vehicle on 4/6/2008 ie; after 125 days. The opposite party in their version has admitted the ownership and permit of the complainant's vehicle and that the vehicle had certificate of fitness till 26/9/2008. The opposite party has further admitted that the complainant and the proposed purchaser were summoned in the office for a hearing on 10/4/2008 and during the hearing both had accepted that the vehicle was sold and delivered two months ago. In support of the same, the opposite party has furnished Ext. D1 wherein the opposite party contends that the complainant and the proposed purchaser Sri. Ayyappan have endorsed the same.
6. The learned counsel for the opposite party had put a question to PW1, the complainant that, “Hearing date - ന് മുന്പായി തന്നെ Ayyappan - ന് വാഹനം കൈ മാറിയതായി ടി യാള് സമ്മതിച്ചിട്ടുണ്ടല്ലോ ? (Q) ശരിയല്ല (A)”. Furthermore, the complainant had put a question to the opposite party DW1 regarding Ext. D1 that “ആയത് വ്യാജമായി ഹാജരാക്കിയതാണ് എന്ന് പറയുന്നു കൂടാതെ അതൊരു official letter അല്ല എന്നും പറയുന്നു ? (Q) വ്യാജമല്ല (A)”. The complainant had vehemently argued that he had received an amount towards advance for the sale of amount and so to all those who asked, he told that the vehicle has been sold. The complainant further argued that, Ext. D1 is not an official document and hence it neither bear Reg.No., Permit No., the signature of Ayyappan nor the details regarding who has sold the vehicle or to whom it has been sold. 7. DW1 had deposed that after the said hearing, on 10/4/2008 under the above circumstance, an AMVI was directed to enquire into the genuiness of the version of the applicants regarding the transaction of the vehicle and the AMVI reported that the address of the proposed purchaser, as furnished in the application, was T.C 29/994, Kulathinkara Veedu, Palkulanara, Thiruvananthapuram but the house was occupied by the family of the late Mohandas and that this family had been residing in that house for three years. The said AMVI has further reported that the person staying next to said address had told him that she has been staying there for the last 18 years and she had no knowledge that such a person ever stayed there. At this juncture, the important aspect to be noted is that, the opposite party had issued a notice to both parties summoning them for hearing on 10/4/2008 in the addresses mentioned in the application given by the parties. As per Ext. D1 the address mentioned above is the one mentioned supra. The said Ayyappan received the notice sent in that address and had appeared for hearing also. In such a circumstance how the said AMVI managed to prepare a report like Ext. D2 casts doubt. This very act of the AMVI itself shows without any iota of doubt that, the report has been prepared without any proper enquiry and with an ulterior motive to harass the complainant. The complainant who is a poor auto driver, who is earning his livelihood by plying an auto has been made to run from pillar to post several times without any genuine reasons. The complainant had put a specific question to the opposite party that “10/4/2008 – ല് hearing - ന് ശേഷം aapplication reject ചെയ്ത് records തിരികെ തരാമായിരുന്നു, , എന്തുകൊണ്ട് അന്ന്തന്നെ തിരികെ തന്നില്ല ? (Q) അന്ന് RTO - യുടെ മനോവികാരം എന്താണ് എന്ന് മനസ്സിലായില്ല (A)”.
8. From the above facts and circumstances of the case it can be concluded that the act of the opposite party in detaining the records of the vehicle belonging to the complainant submitted on 31/1/2008 till 4/6/2008 is unreasonable. From the above discussions we are of the view that the complainant has to be compensated for the delay caused to him and the hardships suffered to him due to the deficient act of the opposite party. The complainant has pleaded that he has incurred a loss of Rs.37,500/- towards profit he could have earned after meeting all the expenses of the vehicle. But there is no evidence to substantiate the same. From the pleadings, evidence and documents on record we find that the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with Rs.2,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
In the result, complaint is allowed and the complainant is found entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings from the opposite party. The opposite party shall pay the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% till realisation.
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.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 15th day of March, 2010.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.
C.C.No.159/2008 APPENDIX 1. Complainant's witness: PW1 : K. Shambhu II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of the letter dated 31/3/08. P2 : " " 21/5/08 P3 : " " 29/5/08 P4 : " " 22/8/08. P5 : " " 18/3/08. P6 : " issued by complainant. P7 : " cash receipt dated 31/5/08. P8 : " cash receipt dated 31/10/08. III. Opposite party's witness: D1 : Joint application dated 31/1/2008 D2 : Photocopy of Site Inspection Report. D3 : " the letter dated 21/5/2008 D4 : " Registration Certificate D5 : " joint application D6 : letter dated 29/5/2008.
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
