ORDER

          U/s.12 of the C.P. Act, complainant has filed the complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in not registering the vehicle of the complainant before RTO due to  mentioning wrong engine and chassis by the OPs in their sale letter.

          2) Upon service of notice O.Ps.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their objections, written arguments and produced some documents.

          3) In support of the claim in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit, written arguments and produced some documents.  

          4) We have heard the argument and perused the records.

          5) Now the point for our consideration is that whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. is entitled to the reliefs sought?

          6) Our finding on the point is partly in negative, for the following reasons.

:: R E A S O N S ::

          7) On perusal contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, on 12.11.2012 complainant purchased HMT Tractor from OP showroom by exchanging his old tractor. The complainant paid Rs.5,74,811/- to the new tractor. The new tractor registration number is KA 49 TR 578, sale certificate no.3522, engine no.66636 & chasis number is C49282. The OP gave sale letter after lapse of 6-7 months. After 3 months the complainant went to the RTO Bailhongal for registration, but RTO officials declined to register the vehicle in the name of complainant for the reason, there is change/ mismatch between the engine & chassis numbers in the documents and numbers impressed on the tractor. Hence complainant approached OP.2 and after 15 days he collected documents from complainant & assured solution for the problem, but for nearly 5-6 months the issue was not solved and the OP.2 went on postponing the work. After that OP.2 contacted the complainant and asked Rs.10000/- for insurance and got insured and approached the complainant with new sale letter and other documents and insurance copy & told that the issued is solved. Thereafter complainant approached RTO in the  month of November 2014 but, again the officials declined to register the vehicle in the  name of complainant for the reason, there is change/ mismatch between the engine & chassis numbers in the documents and numbers impressed on the tractor. Hence the complainant contacted the OPs and requested them to solve the problem. Though the OPs assured to solve the problem but not solved. Hence the complainant issued legal notice to OPs on 16.10.2015 calling upon them to correct the mistake with regard to engine number. The OPs received the legal notice but not replied or complied the same. Therefore the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against OPs.

          8)      The OPs. filed objections to the complaint denying & disputing the complaint averments and further contended that, it is true that sale letter issued by OP.1 in respect of tractor engine number stands as 66636. But is true to state further that the engine number of the vehicle stands as 66656 and it was due to over sight, but not an intentional one. Hence the OPs informed the complainant to handover the original letter of sale & on the other hand complainant went on supplying zerox of the said letter of sale. Under the circumstances OPs now also ready & willing to rectify the same by issuing new letter of sale. But complainant never returned soon for temporary registration & passing of the said vehicle from RTO side, only one or two times after 7-8 months from the date of registration & delivery of the said vehicle approached & supplied zerox of the said letter of sale. Further, the chassis number of the vehicle is C/49282 itself is correct & valid either in the  sale letter or impress caused on the chassis of the tractor itself which was never tampered nor there was a scratch marks on the said part on chassis. Further, non reply to the legal notice was not an intentional one as the OP.1 was busy in day today business. Hence OPs prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

          9)      On perusal of contents of the objections the OPs admit that, it is true that sale letter issued by OP.1 in respect of tractor engine number stands as 66636. But the correct engine number is 66656  and it was due to over sight, but not an intentional one. Further, the chassis number of the vehicle is C/49282 itself is correct & valid either in the sale letter or impress caused on the chassis of the tractor itself.

          10)    The OPs in their objections have clearly admitted the mistake and further stated that they are ready to correct the engine number by issuing new sale letter, if the complainant handover the original sale letter. Though the complainant has stated in his complaint that, after the RTO authorities denied to register the vehicle of the complainant, the complainant had approached the OPs, in this regard, but the complainant not produced any documents to show that, he has approached the OPs and handed over the original sale letter to them for necessary correction and for issuance of the new sale letter.

          11)    Coming to the prayer column of the complaint, the complainant has prayed for refund of the purchase amount of the vehicle and compensation. Complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps. alleging deficiency in service in not registering the vehicle of the complainant before RTO, due to mentioning wrong number of the engine and chassis number of the vehicle by the OPs in their sale letter. The prayer of the complainant is not in accordance with the allegations of the complainant. For this reason the prayer of the complainant shall not be considered.

12) Taking into consideration of the facts, evidence on record and the discussion made here before deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. has not been proved.

       13) Accordingly, the following

:ORDER:

          The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

(Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on: 07 July 2017)