By Jayasree Kallat, Member

 

            The petition was filed on 25.01.2011. The complainant Gireesh kumar.P.M has filed this petition against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service. The last day of renewal of the registration of his Maruthi 800 Car KL 11 D.8370 was on 26.12.2010. As 25^th & 26th of that month were holidays the complainant had completed all the necessary formalities which have to be done before the inspection of the vehicle which was to be inspected on 24.12.2010. On 24.12.2010 the government had declared public holiday due to the demise of Ex Chief Minister Sri.K.Karunakaran. As 24.12.2010 was a public holiday the complainant could not produce the vehicle for inspection and remit fees. In natural course of events if such a holiday is declared public is permitted to remit fees the next working day. The complainant had thus approached the opposite party on 27.12.2010 the next working day. The opposite party had imposed Rs.2000/- as fine apart from the usual fees to be remitted. Complainant is alleging that this act of the opposite party is illegal and deficiency of service. Hence this petition is filed seeking refund of the amount which the opposite party had collected illegally.

            The opposite party appeared before the forum and filed a detailed version. opposite party submitted that the complainant Girishkumar’s Maruthi car  KL 11.D.8370 was brought to the Koduvally joint RT Office on 27.12.2010. Complainant had remitted fees for the inspection by AMVI, for the renewal of registration. The registration of the car of the complainant ended by 26.12.2010. As per the MV Act section 39 and as per the violation section 192 compounding offence complainant was asked to remit Rs.2000/- in the R.T.Office . The complainant had remitted the fine without any protest. As per the CMV Rule 52 it has been made very clear that the vehicles should be submitted for inspection 60 days before the due date of renewal. This complainant had waited for the grace period of 60 days and hence he is not entitled for any relief. The opposite party had collected fine as per CMV Rule 52. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite party.

            The complainant was not present before the forum for 2 consecutive postings to present his case. The joint RTO had filed version on 11.04.2011 itself. The complainant did not appear and file affidavit or give any evidence to prove his case. On the contrary the opposite party has appeared and made it clear that the customers are given 60 days period for renewal of registration. But the complainant has not used this grace period to remit fee and renew registration. Hence opposite party had imposed fine as per rule 52 which is according to the prevailing CMV Rule. There was no deficiency to be found on the side of the opposite party. Hence the forum is of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

            In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 31^st day of August 2011.

Date of filing:25.01.2011.

 

 

                 SD/-PRESIDENT                  SD/-MEMBER                 SD/-MEMBER.

 

//True copy//

 

 

(Forwarded/By Order)

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT