Complainant’s case in short is that he is a teacher by profession and had purchased a high budget vehicle being model no. Maruti Baleno Zeta having its chassisno. MBHE WB 22 SHF 1339 52 and engine
Contd…..P/2
-:2:-
No. K12MN 711 2592 from OPs No. 1 to 4 with financial assistance of OP No. 6 for paying a sum of Rs. 6,99,472/-to OPs No. 1 to 4. OP No. 5 is Assistant Regional Transport Officer of Siliguri.
It has been alleged by complainant that at the time of purchase of the car OP No. 1 to 4 have assured to the complainant to complete entire registration procedure and accordingly on their assurance the complainant paid entire cost and expenses for registration to OPs no. 1 to 4. Thereafter on purchase of said vehicle on 21.06.2017 the OPs handed over vehicle’s paper but did not hand over permanent registration certificate inspite of charge for registration. The complainant was paying his monthly installments but could not use the vehicle or ply the vehicle due to want of permanent registration certificate though complainant incurred Rs. 24,044/- for insurance and Rs. 40,092/- for fees and taxes. Thereafter from time to time complainant visited office of OP No. 1 to 4 and also OP No. 5 for permanent registration certificate of the vehicle but it was not handed over and it appeared that OPs made false assurance that within 2-3 next date permanent registration certificate will be handed over to the complainant.
It has been further alleged by the complainant that he purchased the vehicle for his daily use and needs and to meet the urgent requirements but in absence of registration certificate complainant has to hire local vehicles for his purpose bearing huge expenditure. He also found that vehicle fee has been paid by him to OP No. 1 to 4 on 21.06.2017 but the same has been deposited to OP No. 5 on 07.07.2017 after lapse of 15 days. In such a situation having no other alternative complainant wrote a letter to OP No. 3 on 30.11.2017 to provide him permanent certificate, so that he can use his vehicle. Thereafter OP No. 4 issued a letter to complainant praying apology for non-providing registration certificate as upgradation of working system at OP No. 5 has been hold up.But on enquiry complainant came to know that all works of OP No. 5 was going on regularly and smoothly. These shows there was deficiency in service and unfair trade practices on the part of OPs and they have failed to discharge their responsibilities.
It appears by way of amendment the complainant has stated that after filing of instant complaint the OP No. 5 has issued permanent registration certificate being no. WB 74 AS 7852 for his vehicle.
As per the complainant the cause of action arose on and from 21.06.2017 and continued thereafter, so the complainant has been compelled to file the instant case to refund a sum of Rs. 7,63,608/- with an interest @ 18% since 21.06.2017 and also for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental pain agony and harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- for punitive damages and Rs. 50,000/- for hiring other vehicles for use of complainant and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost.
Contd…..P/3
-:3:-
In this case notices have been served upon OPs no. 1 to 4 but they have not appeared to contest this case.
In this case notice has been served also upon OP No.5, who has appeared and has submitted a written version. It has been alleged by OP No.5 that there is no cause of action against OP No.5. Complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, and OP No. 5 has been made unnecessary party who is a public servant under the Government. The OP No. 5 has stated that the department of Additional Regional Transport authority did not receive any amount of Rs. 40,092/- for the purpose of registration fees and road tax from the petitioner/complainant. Unless registration fees and road tax is paid in the office of OP No. 5, he has no authority to issue any registration certificate or bluebook and OP No.5 has never given any assurance to complainant.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATIONS
Upon pleadings of both sides following points are required to be considered.
- Is the complainant a consumer within the meaning of C.P. Act?
- Is there any deficiency in service by OPs as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled for any relief as claimed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
For the sake of convenience all these three points are taken up for discussion together.
If provisions of Section 39 of the M.V. Act is considered then no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless vehicle is registered and vehicle carries a registration mark displayed on the vehicle but it is not applicable to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer subject to certain conditions.
According to Section 40 of M.V. Act every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by any registering authorities in the State in whose Jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle is normally kept.
Further as per provision of Section 41 of the M.V. Act an application by or on behalf of owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form with such documents within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.
But in case of a New Motor vehicle, the application for
Contd…..P/4
-:4:-
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 the application shall be accompanied by requisite fee.
It has been further provided that in case of a new motor vehicle, where the application for the registration has been made as stated above then such motor vehicle shall not be delivered to the owner until such registration mark is displayed on the Motor vehicle.
Thus there should be non-delivery of new motor vehicle by dealer unless it is registered and the owner of the new motor vehicle shall not drive or cause it to be driven in any public or other place unless it is registered.
So far as temporary registration is considered, as per provision of Sec. 43 of M.V. Act, notwithstanding anything contained in section 40 of the M.V. Act, the owner of a motor vehicle may apply to any registering authority or other authority as may be prescribed to have the motor vehicle temporarily registered, and such authority shall issue a temporary certificate and registration and temporary registration mark for a period of one month.
Thus on perusal on section 39 to 43 of M.V. Act, it appears it has not been stated what should be period in which a permanent registration certificate should be issued. However, new motor vehicle is required to be registered by the dealer of the vehicle.
Considering the further provisions though the complainant has taken the delivery of the Motor Vehicle in question and dealer has also delivered the said motor vehicle without making registration and giving any registration number. The amount for registration has been deposited on 07.07.2017 through e-payment challan though the vehicle has been purchasedon 21.06.2017. The Op No. 5 has registered the same on 22.12.2017. It has been submitted by OP No. 5 that unless Road Tax is received in his office there is no liability to issue a registration certificate. Amount and Registration fee and road tax were not transferred to the Department of OP No. 5, so no right accrued to complainant but it appears OP No. 5 nowhere has stated that when amount was received then why delay was caused though e-challan is dated 07.07.2017 and written version of OP No. 5 is on 18.04.2018,so from the conduct of OPs it appears there is deficiency in service and this deficiency has not been properly explained by them.
The vehicle in question has been put in non-operation till the registration certificate and registration mark has been issued by OP No. 5. This shows that all the OPs Nos. 1 to 4 are jointly liable for this deficiency in service.
Contd…..P/5
-:5:-
In the written version the OP No. 5 has taken a plea that he is a public servant under the Government of West Bengal as such case is not maintainable against the Government. On this point the Ld. Counsel for complainant has furnished a citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court report in AIR 1994 SC 787. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that as per decision of this case, a Government or Semi-Government body or a local authority or local body etc. are as such amenable as private bodies rendering similar services, so this case is maintainable against OP No. 5. It has been further submitted by Ld. Counsel for complainant that relief can be granted not limited only to award or value of goods or service but compensation should be also granted for harassment, mental agony or oppression suffered by consumer.
In this case complainant has prayed to refund a sum of Rs. 7,63,608/- together with an interest @ 18% per annum for the cost of vehicle and others. Further to make a payment for asum of Rs. 2.00.000/- for mental pain agony and continuous harassment and further Rs. 1,00,000/- as punitive damages and Rs. 50,000/- for hiring of vehicle by complainant and Rs. 20,000/- for litigation cost.
It appears that OP No. 5 has not given any assurance to complainant. Whatever assurance was given was from the side of OPs No. 1 to 4. Time limit is for temporary permit and complainant has not availed it due to assurance given by OPs No. 1 to 4. The OP No.5 has acted when the amount has been credited to his Department, so this Forum finds that OP No.5 cannot be held liable for assurance given by OPs No. 1 to 4.
So, upon consideration of entire facts and circumstances of this case this Forum is of the view that complainant is a consumer within the meaning Consumer Protection Act.Further the complainant is using his car after registration, so it is not possible to award any payment for car value. However complainant has suffered for harassment and mental pain and agony, so he is entitled for Rs. 30,000/- at least for harassment and mental pain and agony. Further complainant is not entitled for any punitive damages as claimed but he is entitled to for litigation cost of this case because registration has been issued only after institution of this case.
This case has been filed on 13.12.2017 and three years has been passed and complainant has pursued this case, so he is entitled for litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/- at least from OPs No. 1 to 4. Sofar as hiring of vehicle by complainant is considered for a personal use after purchase of the above mentioned car no such document has been filed by the complainant to show that he has used hire cars, so complainant is not entitle for it.
Contd…..P/6
-:6:-
Thus all the three above mentioned points are considered and decided in part in favour of complainant and against OPs No. 1 to 4 and complainant is entitled for part relief only.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the Consumer Case No. 96 (S) of 2017 is allowed ex-parte against OPs No. 1 to 4 and on contest against OP No.5 but in part.
The complainant here by is entitled for Rs. 30,000/-(Thirty thousand rupees) for harassment and mental pain and agony. Further complainant is entitled for litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-(Fifteen thousand rupees) at least from OPs No. 1 to 4. Thus complainant is entitled for Rs. 45,000/-(Forty five thousand rupees) in total from OPs No. 1 to 4. The complainant is also entitled for interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount since the date of filing of this case till the date of realization.
The OPs No.1 to 4 are here by directed to pay the above amount of Rs. 45,000/-(Forty five thousand rupees) to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to realize the same as per law.
Let a copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost.
