Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/586/2011

S.K. MOTORS, S. SELVARAJ - Complainant(s)

Versus

T.SURULIRAJAN - Opp.Party(s)

C. PRABHAKARAN

25 Feb 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI                     PRESIDENT 

                                     THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                                                JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                     TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                     MEMBER                                                                              

F.A.NO.586/2011

(Against the order in CC.No.30/2010, dated 24.03.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Perambalur)

DATED THIS THE 25^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015

S.K.Motors,

Rep.by S.Selvaraj,

No.480, Sunmukapriya Complex,                                                                           M/s.C.Prabhakaran

4^th Road, Perambalur,                                                                                             Counsel for Appellant / Opp.party

Perambalur District.

-vs-

T.Surulirajan,

Colany Street,

Mangalamatu Village,                                                                                             M/s.Arul Selvam

Ranjankudi Post,                                                                                                   Counsel for Respondent/Complainant

Veppanthattai Taluk,

Perambalur District.

          The Respondent is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite party praying certain relief.  The District Forum allowed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / opposite party filed this appeal praying for to setaside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.30/2010, dated 24.03.2011.     

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 21.01.2015, upon hearing the arguments on either side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The opposite party is the appellant.

2.       The complainant purchased an Auto Rickshaw from the opposite party on payment of Rs.1,79,500/- and the opposite party evaded registration of the vehicle inspite  of  the payment of  Rs.25,000/-  separately  for registration and it was not registered the complainant was compelled to receive back the amount of Rs.25,000/- with the help of his friend and thereby alleging deficiency claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of income and for costs.

3.       The opposite party denied the allegations and contended that the vehicle was purchased from them on payment of necessary costs and since the vehicle has to be registered as transport vehicle /Auto Rickshaw fixing with meter the complainant received back the vehicle with all necessary documents from the opposite party and it is not the duty of the opposite party to get the vehicle registered when it is sold as a dealer and the allegation of payment of Rs.25,000/- is denied.

4.       Based on the both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum accepting the contentions of the complainant allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by collecting Rs.25,000/- towards more than the registration fees of the vehicle and also directed the opposite party to get the Auto registered to the complainant with a cost of Rs.2500/-.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite party filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint and in this case the complainant has not complied the conditions of the Motor Vehicle Rules by filing necessary applications and he has not produced the vehicle for registration and he wanted to change the seating capacity on 5 +1 and due to the process there was inordinate delay on the part of the complainant and thereby the vehicle was not registered  with  RTO and  it is  also not  the  mandatory duty  on the part of the opposite party to get the vehicle registered once sold and delivery effected with necessary documents and Rule 42 of Motor Vehicle Act is not applicable in the present case.  The person who has said to have received back of Rs.25,000/- one Rathnavel was not examined by the District Forum when the opposite party denied the receipt of the same.  Hence an award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for not running the vehicle is unjustifiable and hence the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides contentions, arguments and carefully considered the materials in this regard.  It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased Auto Rickshaw for public use from the opposite party on payment of Rs.1,79,500/- and also paid Rs.25,000/- towards registration charges which was said to have been received back by him with the help of one Rathnavel.  The vehicle is not at all registered as admitted by both sides at the time of filing complaint.  The complainant alleged that it was because of the delay of the opposite party it was held up, but the opposite party contended that since the complainant wanted to change the permit conditions from the existing seating capacity of 3 +1 to 5+1 and change of meter accordingly and after delivery of the vehicle the complainant had not filed necessary applications for registration and not produced the vehicle for registration. These are all not denied by the complainant even though stated that he had paid excess of Rs.25,000/- towards registration charges since it is stated that a sum of Rs.1800/- was paid towards for fixing of meter it is to be accepted that the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of utilizing as public use share auto by  considering  the model  of the  auto  purchased from  the  opposite party.   In those Circumstances under the provisions of Sec.41 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (Central Act) an application shall be filed in such form shall accompany such documents, particulars and information within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government by on behalf of the owner of the Motor vehicle.  Under Rule-42 the person having trade certificate selling vehicle shall not delivered the vehicle to a purchaser without registration whether temporary or permanent. In this case the complainant admitted that he had renewed the permit for 2 times and he had not stated that he had handed over the application for registration to the opposite party when the opposite party had contended that he had delivered the vehicle with all necessary forms, materials required for the purpose of registration and the complainant failed to produce the vehicle before the RTO for registration. When the complainant accepted that he had received back Rs.25,000/- given for registration to the opposite party it can be construed that the opposite party was not expected to register the vehicle on behalf of the complainant without any service charges or payment.  In those circumstances the District Forum even though observed it is mandatory on the part of the opposite party to get the vehicle registered and delivered since the complainant failed to prove that he had complied all the formalities with the opposite party for the purpose of registration and thereby the order of the District Forum directing the opposite party to get the registration and delivered to the complainant with the expenses of complainant is erroneous one.  When the appeal is heard it is pointed out that the vehicle was already got registered  with  the authorities  and thereby  this direction  of the  district Forum become infractuous and as far as the award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and not following the rules 42 and 47 of Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 resorting unfair trade practice by collecting a sum of Rs.25,000/- more than registration fee awarded is concerned since the complainant himself stated that he had got back the amount of Rs.25,000/- from the opposite party said to have been paid for registration the question of unfair trade practice does not arise and the complainant had not produced any materials to show that he had sustained any loss for not running the vehicle because of non registration of the vehicle by the opposite party.  When he himself filed the application for registration under Ex.A6 only dated 1.3.2010, the Invoice receipt under Ex.B1 dated 5.1.2010 even though the complainant said to have been purchased the vehicle on 9.11.2009 by paying for meter purchase bill for Rs.1800/- dated 24.8.2010 and the complaint was filed in the month of October 2010, the District Forum did not explained how it had arrived a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and not mentioned that the award of damages for loss of income due to deficiency of service and stated as resorting unfair trade practice and not followed the rules and Motor Vehicle Act.  When the complaint is only for non registration of Auto without specifying the exact loss sustained because of it we are of the view that the quantum of award by the District Forum is not proportionate to the claim and thereby it could be reduced to Rs.10,000/- by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum by setting aside the direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and also setting aside the direction for to get registration of Auto, and permit following rule 42 and 47 of Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 with the expenses of the complainant.

          Instead the opposite party is directed to pay only a sum of Rs.10,000/- alone as compensation for deficiency in service committed by the opposite party in non registering the vehicle by following the procedure in time

          The order of the District Forum to pay a sum of Rs.2500/- as costs to the complainant is hereby confirmed.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

          The directions shall be complied within a period of 6 weeks from the date of this order.

 

P.BAKIAYAVATHI                    A.K. ANNAMALAI                      R.REGUPATHI

    MEMBER                                 (J) MEMBER                             PRESIDENT