By. Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:-
Brief of the complaint: The complainant participated in the public auction conducted by opposite party No.1 and 3 on 06.11.2010 in connection with the sale of 1998 model jeep bearing No. KRN 4243. The complainant was the highest bidder of the auction. Hence the auction fixed on him for an amount of Rs.77,500/- being the auction amount, Rs.9,688/- towards tax and Rs.309/- towards the diesel cost, in total he deposited an amount of Rs.87,497/-. On the same day the vehicle handed over to the complainant but the documents for transferring Registration Certificate in to the name of the complainant is not given to the complainant as per letter No.D1-716/2010 dated 09.11.2010. The auction was finalized and that effect informed to the complainant and thereafter several times the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 for getting relevant documents from opposite party No.1. The complainant had applied before opposite party No.2 for transferring Registration Certificate in to his name. Since the opposite party No.1 was not co-operated with complainant, he could not transfer the vehicle to his name. 23 times he approached opposite party No.1 and 2 for transferring Registration Certificate in to his name. At last he filed a complaint before the Legal Service Authority and the same was taken in to file as DLSA 447/2011 and notice ordered to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 and the case was posted to 11.06.2011. Being afraid of the interference from the court on 09.06.2011 the opposite parties issued the Registration Certificate in the name of the complainant. From 09.11.2010, when the auction was confirmed, to 09.06.2011, when the Registration Certificate is transferred in to the name of the complainant, ( 7 Months) the complainant could not use the vehicle though auctioned by him. Since the Registration Certificate is not transferred in to his name, that is the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party collected more amount from the complainant than he is bound to pay. That is challenged by the complainant and the opposite party returned the excess amount collected from him. He is not claiming any relief from opposite party No.2. Since opposite party No.2 is a necessary party that is why he was impleaded as opposite party No.2. Hence it is prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant for the deficiency of service and also prayed to allow cost of this complaint.
2. The opposite party No.1 and 2 filed their version. In version of opposite party No.1 it is admitted that on 06.11.2010 the Jeep bearing No. KRN 4243 was auctioned and the complainant was the highest bidder and the auction confirmed on him for an amount of Rs.77,892/-. On the very same day he deposited the amount and handed over the Registration Certificate, Token, Insurance, Battery guarantee card and the order copy, transfer form No.29 and 30 and the same was informed to opposite party No.2 on 10.11.2010 wide letter No.D1-716/10. All the documents relating to the vehicle were handed over to the complainant on 06.11.2010 itself. The complainant has not approached the opposite party No.1 for any documents. Opposite party No.1 has not aware what was the reason for not transferring the Registration Certificate in the name of the complainant from opposite party No.2's office. The opposite party No.1 has not accepted any more amount from the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Hence it is prayed that the complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party.
3. Opposite party No.2 appeared and filed version. In the version they admitted that on 21.12.2010 the complainant has filed an application to transfer the Registration Certificate of vehicle No. KRN 4243 to his name and they started for transferring Registration Certificate in to the name of complainant on 22.12.2010 itself. But in the documents produced by the complainant there is no actual date of possession of the vehicle by the complainant. For accepting the tax and for changing the name of owner that date is absolutely necessary. So we have given a letter to the complainant for getting the actual date of possession of the vehicle but the letter, stating that on 06.11.2010 the vehicle handed over to the complainant is received by opposite party No.2 only on 09.06.2011. On the very same day the Registration Certificate transferred in to the name of the complainant. There is no delay in transferring the Registration Certificate in to the name of the complainant. We have taken all actions without any delay. Hence 2nd opposite party is not liable for the delay.
4. On considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered:-
1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1 :- To prove complainant's case he has filed his chief affidavit. He was cross examined by counsel for opposite party No.1 and 3. In the chief affidavit he stated as stated in the complaint. Ext.A1 to A10 documents are also produced. Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 06.11.2010 which shows that the opposite party No.1 has accepted an amount of Rs.87,497/- from the complainant. Ext.A2 series are the receipt for an amount of Rs.77,892/- towards the auction of department vehicle KRN 4243 dated 06.11.2010. Another receipt for an amount of Rs.309/- is issued on the same day by opposite party No.1 for diesel charge of department vehicle. Ext.A5 is the proceedings of opposite party No.1 No.D1-716/2010 dated 09.11.2010 in which the applicant is directed to produce the copy of Election identity card, copy of driving license or pan card to take over the said jeep immediately along with Registration Certificate, tax receipt, insurance certificate in original. Ext.A6 series is the form No.29 sent to opposite party No.2 by opposite party No.1 for transferring the Registration Certificate into the name of the complainant. In the above documents even though opposite party No.1 is signed in the form the column of date is blank. Form No.30 is filed by opposite party No.1 and addressed to opposite party No.2 . In the above form also column of date is also blank. Ext.A7 is the notice issued from District Legal Service Authority, Kalpetta. Which shows that DLSA 447/2011 is posted to 11.06.2011 for consideration and the complainant is requested to attend at 10 AM at District Court. Ext.A8 is the letter issued from 2nd opposite party to the complainant. In the above letter the opposite party No.2 requested the complainant to obtain the date of delivery of vehicle No. KRN 4243 from opposite party No.1 and produce the same.
6. The opposite parties did not adduced any oral evidence to prove their case. Ext.B1 to B4 documents are produced and marked. Ext.B1 is the copy of the receipt which shows that the complainant has accepted Registration Certificate, tax token, insurance original, battery guarantee card, proceedings, form No.29 and 30 transfer form. Ext.B2 is the proceedings dated 06.11.2010. Ext.B3 is the details of vehicle KRN 4243. Ext.B4 is true copy of page No.18 of local delivery book. On perusing the same it is found that the office order No. D1-716/2010 dated 10.11.2010 regarding disposal of department vehicle Mahindra Jeep KRN 4243 sold in public auction is despatched on 25.11.2010 and the same is received at 2nd opposite party's office on 27.11.2010.
7. Entire file regarding the auction of Jeep KRN 4243 is called for from opposite party No.1's office. Opposite party No.1 produced the true copy of the file that is marked as Ext.X1 series. In page No.11 it is noted that the jeep is delivered to the people wide proceedings No.2 cited above on 06.11.2010. Ext.A5 is missing in the X1 series. Ext.A5 is the proceedings of opposite party No.1 in order No.716/2010 dated 09.11.2010. Which is the order regarding the auction of the department vehicle KRN 4243. It is a part and parcel of Ext.X1 series. We don't know how it is missing from Ext.X1 series. Ext.A5 shows that the auction confirmed as per the above proceedings. The order date is on 09.11.2010. In the above proceedings the opposite party requested the complainant to produce the copy of election identity card, copy of driving license or pan card to take over the said jeep immediately along with Registration Certificate, tax receipt and insurance certificate in original. That means the averments in Ext.X1 stating that the jeep is delivered on 06.11.2010 is false. That will prove by going through Ext.A5. That may be the reason that Opposite party No.1 has not produced Ext.A5 in Ext.X1 series. In Ext.X1 ( Page No.13 to 18) Form No.29 and Form No.30 and transfer of insurance the space of dates are blank. In the receipt of Ext.X1 ( Page No.17) while accepting documents the date is not noted to show when the complainant accepted the documents. It is clear from the version of opposite party No.2 that the letter showing the date of delivery is received by opposite party No.2 on 09.06.2011. Ext.A7 clearly prove that the complainant filed a complaint before the DLSA and the same is posted to 11.06.2011 at 10 AM. In the complaint filed before the DLSA on 19.05.2011 he prayed to give direction, to transfer the Registration Certificate of the jeep No. KRN 4243 in to his name. All the documents discussed above clearly prove that even though the complainant is attended in auction and he was the highest bidder in the auction of the vehicle KRN 4243. The opposite party No.1 has not given the letter to opposite party No.2 showing the clear date of transfer of vehicle in time. This is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.
8. Point No.2 :- It is clear that even though the complainant has paid the entire value of the jeep KRN 4243 on 06.11.2010 he could not say he is the owner of the jeep till 09.11.2011. So he is entitled to get Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this litigation from the opposite party No.1. The office of the opposite party No.1 is a public office. Hence paying the cost and compensation from the public fund is not fair. Hence the amount paid by opposite party No.1 is to be recovered from its negligent and defaulting officials. We think that it is a fit case to apply the decision of Honorable National Commission reported in National Commission and Supreme Court on Consumer cases 1986-2005 Part VI page 9081 in Chandrkanth Mahadev Kadam V/s Assistant Engineer MSEB Atpady. Hence the opposite party No.1 is directed to fix the liability from whose latches, negligent and default the above mentioned error is happened and recover the amount paid by opposite party No.1 from the concerned negligent and defaulting officials and deposit it in the opposite party No.1's fund.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- ( Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One Thousand Only) as cost of this litigation. Since the office of the opposite party No.1 is a public office, the opposite party No.1 is directed to fix the liability from whose latches the above mentioned error is happened and recover the amount paid by opposite party No.1 from the concerned responsible person and deposit the same in opposite party No.1's fund. This order is to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the day of 29th day of February 2012.
Date of Filing:15.09.2011.
