Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/48/2020

Mr.Mudduraja,S/o Rangappa, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Lakshmi motors and Honda Service, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.S.Prakash

30 Nov 2021

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/08/2020

DISPOSED      ON:18/11/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:48/2020

DATED: 18^th  November 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.Com., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,       MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. K. Mudduraja S/o Rangappa, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kuridasannahatti Village, Kanajanahalli Post, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District. (Rep., by Sri. S. Prakash,   Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. Sri. Lakshmi Motors and Honda Service, Dharampura Road, Behind Hospital, Parashurampura, Prop: Vasanthakumar S/o Nagaraja, Now R/o # 48, Near Maramma Temple, Chitraiahanahatti, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   2. Sai Bikes, Authorized Hero Moto Crop Dealer, # P.6(E), Ist Stage, Peenya Industrial Area, Laxmidevi Nagar, Opp:Piller No.39E, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru-560 058.            (Op.1 and 2 Ex-parte)

                                                                           

   ORDER

By Smt. B.H. Yashoda, Lady Member.

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant Under Section  35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 for seeking the relief/s of to direct the Ops to register the vehicle of the complainant permanently at the concerned RTO  Chitradurga and to direct the Ops to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for suffering shock and mental agony of the complainant and to direct the Ops to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of Proceedings and to grant such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit to grant under the above circumstances in the interest of Justice and equity.

The brief facts of the complaint is:-

 The complainant is the permanent resident of Kuridasanahatti village, Hiriyur Taluk. The complainant is an agriculturist and the Op No.2 is the Authorized Dealer of Hero Moto Corp Splendor Plus, Functioning at Tumkur Road, Bangalore and Op No.1 is the Commission Agent, functioning at Parushurampura Village, Challakere Taluk.

2. The Complainant has contended that he has purchased Hero Moto Corp Splendor plus Self Motor bike, with Chassis No. MBLHA10CGGHHD8830, Engine No. HAIOERGHH19998 on07/09/2016. The Op No.2 has received Rs. 48,650.00 Vide Invoice NO.  MN4983 on 23/08/2016. On the strength of the  application submitted to the concerned authority for temporary registration of the said vehicle and the RTO, Bangalore (North) has issued. Temporary Certificate Registration on 07/08/2016 and it is valid up to 06/10/2016. After completing temporary registration period, repeatedly the complainant has requested the Op No.1 for permanent registration of the said vehicle as the Op No.2 has authorized to Op No.1 for permanent registration of the said vehicle. The Complainant has paid required amount to Op No.1 for permanent registration Charges of the said complainant vehicle. Even if, the complainant has requested with Op No.1 to register the said vehicle permanently. Op No.1 has drag on the matter on one way or other without any reason. Op No.1 has utterly failed to register complainant vehicle permanently. Without permanent registration of the said vehicle the Op No.1 has sent original documents through post to the complainant address which are mentioned as below.

3. It is also averred in his complaint, that on 01/06/2020, the complainant has received said postal cover which was sent by the Op No.1 with the said documents even if, the Op No.1 has collected prescribed registration fee from the complainant, the Op No.1 has failed to register the complainant vehicle at the concerned RTO and Op No.1 has kept the said original documents in his custody, since from the date of purchase of the said vehicle without registered the  said vehicle permanently though the said documents have been in his custody. But, the Op No.1 has recently send the said documents to the complainant’s address, without taking steps to register the said vehicle. After received the said documents, the complainant enquired with Op No.1 regarding non-registration of the said vehicle but, Op No.1 has given harassive answer and not responded with the complainant in this regard.

4. Further stated that due to this inconvenience, the complainant is unable to run the said vehicle on the public road without permanent registration and the complainant has kept the said vehicle in his house without running. The Op No.1 has          willing fully and intentionally kept the said documents in his custody for long time and failed to register the complainant vehicle permanently, though he has received fee from the complainant. Inspite of request Op No.2 has also not taken any steps to register the complainant’s vehicle permanently after sale of the said vehicle. It amounts that there is gross negligence on the Ops and made deficiency in service, due to this infact, the complainant has suffered loss and both Ops are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

5. The complainant has got issued legal notice to the both Ops on 06/07/2020, and the notice was served to the Op No.2. The notice issued to the Op No.1 is returned as open it to the address of the Advocate, and the Op No.1 is residing at the same address. In-spite of service of notice, the Ops have not taken any steps to register the said vehicle permanently and even the Ops failed to reply to the notice. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint before this commission by praying the relief/s.

6. After service of notice from this Commission, Ops have not appeared and filed any objections. Considering this on 08/10/2020, this Hon’ble Commission was placed them as Ex-parte.

7. The complainant has examined as Pw-1 by filing the Affidavit evidence and the documents Ex A-1 to A-11 were got marked and closed the evidence on their side.

8. Argument of complainant was heard.

9. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the Consumer of opposite parties?
2.  Whether the complainant proves that the Op No.1 fails to got register the registration of vehicle?
3. What order?

10. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

1. Point No.1:- Affirmative.
2. Point No.2:- Affirmative
3. As per final order.

 

•  

        11. Point No.1:- The complainant has purchased Hero Moto Corp Splendor Plus self-Motor bike, with Chassis No. MBLHA 10CGGHHD8830, Engine No. HAIOERGHH19998 on 07/09/2016. The Op No.2 has received Rs. 48,650/- from the complainant vide invoice No. MN4983 on 23/08/2016 i.e., Ex A.2 and for having received the amount vide Ex A-6 as such, that it is not disputed that the complainant is the Consumer of the Ops, so, the issue No.1 is consideration as Affirmative.

12. Point No.2:-  On the strength of application submitted by the concerned authority for temporary registration of the said vehicle i.e., Ex A.1 and the RTO Bangalore (north) has issued temporary certificate Registration on 07/08/2016 and it is valid up to 06/10/2016 i.e., Ex A.3. After completing temporary registration period, repeatedly the complainant has requested to Op No.1 for permanent registration of the said vehicle as the Op No.2 has authorized for permanent registration of the said vehicle. The complainant has paid required amount to Op No.1 for permanent registration charges of the said complainant vehicle. Even if, the complainant has requested with Op No.1 to register the said vehicle permanently, Op No.1 has drag on the matter on one way or other without any reason. Op No.1 has utterly failed to register complainant vehicle permanently. Without permanent registration of the said vehicle, the Op No.1 has sent original documents through post to the complainant and the same has been received on 01/06/2020. In this regard, the complainant has got issued the legal notice through his Counsel on 06/07/2020 i.e., Ex A-7, Op No.1 has received the legal notice the same cover has been returned to the complainant i.e., Ex A.11 and the Op No.2 has received the legal notice, Ex-A.9 but both the Ops have not complied to the notice nor taken any action to got register the complainant’s vehicle. So, it is evident that the Ops since from 23/08/2016 to 01/06/2020 has kept the original documents and failed to permanently registering the complainant’s vehicle, which shows that Ops have committed deficiency in service and dereliction on their duties by receiving the amount for the same. Due to this, the complainant has suffered mental agony.

13. The Ops have not appeared before this Hon’ble Commission nor put forth any documental evidence to prove that they attempted any efforts to got register the vehicle even after receiving the amount from the complainant for permanent registration number. As such, this point No.1 and 2 is taken into consideration as affirmative.

14. Point No.3:- As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated there in pass the following.

                                        ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that the Ops are hereby directed to register the vehicle of the complainant permanently at the concerned RTO, Chitradurga.

It is ordered that the Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- towards sufferings and mental agony of the complainant. It is further directed to the Ops to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

It is further ordered that, the Ops are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order. If the Ops failed to comply the orders, it will carry 6% interest p.a., from the date of filling the complainant till its realization.

(Dictated to stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 18^th day of November 2021)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Sri. Mudduraja S/o Rangappa, complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

                                                NIL

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Form No.20
02	Ex-A-2:-	Vehicle Tax retail Invoice
03	Ex-A-3:-	Form KMV 19
04	Ex.A-4:	Affidavit
05	Ex.A-5:-	AAdhar Card
06	Ex.A-6:-	Sri Lakshmi Motors and Hero Honda Services
07	Ex.A-7:-	Legal notice
08	Ex.A-8:-	2 Receipts
09	Ex.A-9:-	Acknowledgement
10	EX.A-10:-	Return to postal cover
11	EX.A-11:-	Postal cover of Op.1

 

 

Lady Member                     Member               President

COMPLAINT FILED ON:28/08/2020

DISPOSED      ON:30/11/2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:48/2020

DATED: 30th  November 2021

PRESENT: -     Smt. H.N. MEENA. B.A., LL.B., PRESIDENT

 

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.Com., LL.B.,         MEMBER       

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B.,       MEMBER

                    

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. K. Mudduraja S/o Rangappa, Aged about 40 years, R/o Kuridasannahatti Village, Kanajanahalli Post, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep., by Sri. S. Prakash,   Advocate)
V/S
….OPPOSITE PARTY/S	1. Sri. Lakshmi Motors and Honda Service, Dharampura Road, Behind Hospital, Parashurampura, Prop: Vasanthakumar S/o Nagaraja, Now R/o # 48, Near Maramma Temple, Chitraiahanahatti, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. 2. Sai Bikes, Authorized Hero Moto Crop Dealer, # P.6(E), Ist Stage, Peenya Industrial Area, Laxmidevi Nagar, Opp:Piller No.39E, Tumkur Road, Bengaluru-560 058.   (Op.1 and 2 Ex-parte)

 

DESCENDING ORDER

BY SRI. G. SREEPATHI, MEMBER.

                This is a complaint filed under section 35 of consumer protection Act, 2019.

        2. Through this complaint, the complainant prays for an award and order against Opposite parties (herein after called as the Ops for short) for the following reliefs;

        a) To direct the Ops to register the vehicle of the complainant permanently at the concerned R.T.O.  Chitradurga.

        b) To direct the Ops to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for suffering shock and mental agony of the complainant.

        c) To direct the Ops to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings and to grant such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit.

        3. The facts given rise to institute the complaint may be summarized as thus;

        It is his grievance that the had purchased Hero Moto Corp., Splendor Plus self-motor, vide chassis No. MBLHA10CGGHHD8830, Engine No. HAIOERGHH 19998 on 07/09/2016. The Op.2 has received Rs. 48,650/- vide In No.MN4983 on 23/08/2016. On submission of application to concerned authority for temporary registration of the said vehicle, the RTO., Bangalore North have issued temporary Registration Certificate on 07/08/2016 and the same is valid up to 06/10/2016. After completion of temporary registration period, complainant repeatedly requested Op.1 for permanent registration of the said vehicle, as the Op has authorized Op.1 for permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant has paid required amount to Op.1 for permanent registration charges of said vehicle of complainant Op.1 has dragon he matter for one or the other reason. Op.1 has utterly failed to register his vehicle permanently. Without registering the said vehicle Op.1 have sent Original documents through post to complainant address which are

mentioned as follows 1) Original application form No.20 for registration of vehicle, in duplicate, 2) Form No.21 sale Certificate dated 07/09/2016 (Original) 3) Original temporary Certificate of registration, 4) Form-22 in duplicate 5) Vehicle Tax Invoice dated 23/08/2016, 6) Xerox Adhar Card.

4.     It is further contended that on 01/06/2020, the complainant has received said postal cover which was sent by Op.1 with said documents even after collecting prescribed registration fee from complainant. Op.1 has failed to register the vehicle at the concerned RTO and Op.1 has kept the said original documents in his custody since from the date of purchase of vehicle. Even without registered the said vehicle permanently the said documents have been in his custody and recently Op.1 has sent the documents to complainant address without taking steps to register the vehicle. On enquiry made by complainant Op.1 have given evasive reply by not responding properly.

5.     Further it is contended that, due to this, the complainant is unable to run the said vehicle on public road without permanent registration. He has kept the vehicle in his house without running. Op.1 has kept the said documents in his custody for long time intentionally, wilfully and failed to register the vehicle permanently though he has received fee from complainant. In spite of request to Op.2, he has not taken any steps to register the vehicle permanently after sale. It amounts to gross negligence on Op’s and made deficiency of service, due to this complainant has suffered loss and both Ops are liable to pay compensation to complainant.

6.     Further it is contended that he has issued legal notice to both Ops on 06/07/2020. The notice served to Op.2 and the notice sent to Op.1 is returned with a shara” redirected to Chitraiahnahatty, insufficient address. The Op.1 is residing in same address. In spite of service of notice to Op.2 have not taken any step to register the vehicle permanently and Op have failed to give reply to the notice, with this complainant has filed this complaint. As per the complainant, the cause of action for filing this complaint arise on 01/06/2020 when complainant has received the postal cover sent by Op.1 with said Original document and on 06/07/2020 when legal notice issued to Ops.

7.     Among the Ops, who have notified of the complaint, on service of notice from this Commission to Ops on 16/09/2020, both Ops have not appeared hence places Ex-parte on 08/10/2020 and posted for complainant evidence. Complainant filed his evidence in chief by way of affidavit along with documents and finally submits written arguments on 09/04/2021. Oral arguments also heard. I have also examined the materials available on record came to be marked as Ex A.1 to A.11.

8.     The question that arise for our consideration are:

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of Op’s?
2. Is the complainant entitled to the relief as prays for?

Our findings on the above questions are here under.

                Point No.1:- In the Negative.

                Point No.2:- as per Order.

                                                -:REASONS:-

9.     At the very threshold, we must point out that, the vehicle said to have been purchased from Op.2, released by Op.2 and subsequently, it was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company valid from 02/09/2016 to 01/09/2017 with temporary registration Certificate valid up to 06/10/2016, vehicle purchased on 07/09/2016, the said fact are elaborately pleaded by the complainant at para-3 of the complaint. It is his grievance that even in spite of payment of Rs. 48,650/- the Ops have not registered the vehicle in his name. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the prevailing provisions of motor vehicles Act to Understand as to whether the responsibility is fixed on the owner of the vehicle or the dealer to register it. Section 39, 40 and 41 of the motor vehicle Act reads thus:

        “39. Necessary for Registration-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 the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the Certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carriers a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner”.

        “40. Registration, where to be made- subject to the provisions of Section 42, Section 43 and Section 60, every owner of a motor vehicle shall cause the vehicle to be registered by a registering authority in whose Jurisdiction he has the residence or place of business where the vehicle normally kept”.

        “41. Registration, how to be made-An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made with in such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

        “Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purpose of the act”.

10.   Apart from the above on perusal of the documents produced by complainant he has failed to substantiate that the entire documents were with Op.1 till 01/06/2020, it is the liability of complainant to register the vehicle within validity period of Temporary Certificate of Registration that is within 06/10/2016, issued by R.T.O. Bangalore (North) while he has purchased the vehicle from Op.2. Also the documents produced before this commission i.e. Ex A.1 Form-20 there is no date to prove that when he has submitted to Op.1 for presenting before the RTO authorities.

11.   That on perusal of the document produced by complainant which is marked as Ex A.4, the contents of the same is as below:

                                               

 

¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæ

EªÀjUÉ,

¥ÁæzÉòPÀ ¸ÁjUÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ,

¸ÁjUÉ E¯ÁSÉ,

avÀæzÀÄUÀð.

 

       Dgï. ªÀÄÄzÀÝgÁd ©£ï ¯ÉÃmï gÀAUÀ¥Àà ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 39 ªÀµÀð, PÀÄjzÁ¸À£ÀºÀnÖ, »jAiÀÄÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, avÀæzÀÄUÀð f¯Éè ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ.

       £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ SÁAiÀÄA ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ EgÀĪÀ ¢éZÀPÀæ (»ÃgÉÆà ¸Àà÷èAqÀgï ¥Àè¸ï) ªÁºÀ£À EzÀÄÝ F ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ bÁ¹ £ÀA. MBLHA10CGGHH08830 DVzÀÄÝ EAf£ï £ÀA.HA10ERGHH19998 F ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/09/2016 gÀAzÀÄ Rjâ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ DyðPÀªÁV vÀÄA¨Á vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ £ÉÆÃAzÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. FUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ £ÉÆÃAzÀt (jf¸ÉÖçõÀ£ï) ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉÆÃgÀ¯ÁVzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ Rjâ ªÀiÁrzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ¢AzÀ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÀÆ ªÁºÀ£ÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ¥Éưøï PÉøï, C¥ÀWÁvÀ EvÀgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà vÀgÀºÀzÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉUÀ½zÀÝgÉ CzÀÄ £À£Àß dªÁ¨ÁÝjAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. JAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

     ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼É®èªÀÇ ¸ÀvÀåªÉAzÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀgÀr ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸À»AiÀÄÄ £À£ÀßzÉAzÀÄ F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

¸ÀܼÀ: avÀæzÀÄUÀð.                                             Sd/

¢£ÁAPÀ: 26/08/2018.                                           (ªÀÄÄzÀÄÝgÁd)

                                                ¥ÀgÀªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¹zÀªÀgÀ ¸À»  

                           (Sworn before WÀNingappa

                                         Advocate and Notary,

                                         Chitradurga on 26/06/2018)                           

12.   In the affidavit sworn before notary, complainant himself has clearly stated that, due to his financial problem he has not registered the vehicle, which clearly shows his negligence. Also on 06/07/2020 he has sent legal notice to Ops even though they were not having any liability of registering the said vehicle as per Section 39, 40 and 41 of M.V. Act. After a lapse of 6 Years from the date of purchase of said vehicle i.e. on 23/08/2016, by suppressing real facts complainant has filed this complaint and the same is not admissible.

13.   A careful reading of the Section and affidavit filed before RTO authority makes abundantly clear that, the owner of the vehicle has been saddled with the responsibility of getting the vehicle registered after purchase and before he puts such vehicle on road for usage. The responsibility is on the owner of the vehicle to submit necessary application to the concerned authority for registration of vehicle. From the documents produced by the complainant, nothing is specifically mentioned that, Op.1 and 2 have taken responsibility of getting the vehicle registered on behalf of the complainant. The Ex A.4 submitted by complainant itself clearly establishes his negligence in registering vehicle in time. The complainant having kept the vehicle in his possession without getting it registered cannot now pinpoint the blaming on the Ops as he has failed to fulfill legal requirements of Section 39 to 41 of motor vehicle Act. Therefore the prayer of the complaint is not sustainable in the eye of law. On service of notice to Ops have not appeared before the Commission. The complaint filed by the complainant has been decided ex-parte on thoroughly looking in to the facts and merits of the case as per Act. Thus from the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following:

                                        -:ORDER:-

        The complaint is dismissed. No cost.

        Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in open Commission on the 30/11/2021)

 

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Sri. Mudduraja S/o Rangappa, complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

                                                NIL

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Form No.20
02	Ex-A-2:-	Vehicle Tax retail Invoice
03	Ex-A-3:-	Form KMV 19
04	Ex.A-4:	Affidavit
05	Ex.A-5:-	Adhar Card
06	Ex.A-6:-	Sri Lakshmi Motors and Hero Honda Services
07	Ex.A-7:-	Legal notice
08	Ex.A-8:-	2 Receipts
09	Ex.A-9:-	Acknowledgement
10	EX.A-10:-	Return to postal cover
11	EX.A-11:-	Postal cover of Op.1

 

 

                                                                            Member 

Kms.