DATE OF FILING : 8.7.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of September, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.142/2010

Between

Complainant : John Joseph,

Arackakkunnel House,

Chempakappara P.O.,

Kochukamakshi,

Idukki District.

And

Opposite Party The Branch Manager,

Maruthi Showroom,

Indus Motors,

T.B.Junction,

Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased a Maruthi Omni 8 seated van from the opposite party on 18.5.2010. The date of expiry of the temporary permit of the vehicle was on 21.5.2010 and so the complainant approached the RT Office, Peerumadu for registering the vehicle. But in the documents issued by the opposite party for registering the vehicle, it is written as LMV Motor Car, which was not correct and so the officers rejected to register the vehicle. So the complainant again approached the opposite party for correcting the 'class of vehicle' as 'PSV (for personal vehicle)'. It was corrected by the opposite party as same and again approached the RT Office for registering the vehicle. But again the registering authority told that the corrected document is not considered for the registration and demanded for a fresh document regarding the same. Again the complainant approached the opposite party for getting the document without any correction and it was issued by the opposite party. But when it was produced for registration, the registering authority charged a fine of Rs.2000/- and it was because of the laches from the part of the opposite party. The complainant approached the RT Office more than twice which is 70 Kms away from the residence of the complainant in order to register the vehicle. The complainant suffered a huge loss because he availed a taxi for his father's treatment because of the non-availability of the vehicle. So this petition is filed for getting compensation from the opposite party.

2. The opposite party filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable because the Regional Transport Authority, Peerumadu is a necessary party and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is admitted that the complainant took delivery of one Maruthi Omni from the opposite party. The complainant had insisted that he himself will register the vehicle. As such this opposite party as usually done, filled the column 'class of vehicle' as 'Light Motor Car' and handed over all the papers to the complainant for registration. Subsequently the complainant had again come and requested to correct the endorsement 'class of vehicle' as 'PSV (for personal use)' instead of 'Light Motor Vehicle'. Again the complainant had come and requested to issue a fresh certificate since no correction was permissible in the Form and so a fresh certificate was issued. The complainant himself had admitted that this opposite party had extended their assistance for registering the vehicle. The alleged penalty was imposed by the complainant due to the fault of the complainant and this opposite party has not committed any fault and the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant and there is oral testimony of DW1 on the side of the opposite party.

5. The POINT :- The petition is filed for getting compensation from the opposite party for the loss incurred to the complainant because of the delay in registering the vehicle. The complainant purchased 8 seated Maruthi Omni from the opposite party, by paying an amount Rs.2,50,077/-, Ext.P4(series) are the copy of the receipts. After delivery of the vehicle, the registration of the vehicle should be done at the RT Office, Peerumadu. So the opposite party issued a Form 21 document for registering the same. But in that column for the 'class of vehicle' was written as 'LMV Motor Car'. When the complainant approached the RT Office, they rejected to register the vehicle and requested the 'class of vehicle' as 'PSV (for personal vehicle)' because it was an 8 seated vehicle. Again the complainant approached the opposite party to correct the same and it was corrected by the opposite party and Ext.P2 is the corrected document supplied by the opposite party with seal. But it was also rejected by the RT Office because of the correction in the document. So the complainant approached the opposite party to get a fresh document without correction and it was issued and produced for registration. But the period of the registration was expired on 21.5.2010. So the complainant paid a penalty of Rs.2,000/- to the registration authority and a delay fee for registration of Rs.50/-. Ext.P5 is the letter issued from the Joint Regional Transport Office, Vandiperiyar stating the same. The opposite party deposed as DW1. DW1 issued Form 21. The vehicle was below 800 Kg and usually all that type of vehicles are classified as LMV, but it was corrected as per the request of the complainant. It was also rejected from the RT Office and fresh Form 21 was given by the opposite party. The opposite party is issuing Form 21 to 8 seated vehicle with endorsement LMV usually.

It is admitted by the opposite party that they issued Form 21 with class as “LMV” initially, after it was corrected, again a fresh form was also issued. Ext.P5 shows that the complainant paid Rs.2,050/- as fine for delay in registering the vehicle. The complainant is an ordinary layman who may not able to know the formalities for registering the vehicle, but the opposite party is usually delivering this type of vehicle and they themselves written as LMV for 8 seated vehicle and it is rejected by the RT Office. Again the corrected document was rejected by the RT Office. The vehicle was delivered on 18.5.2010 and the temporary registration period was expired on 21.5.2010. The RT Office was at Peerumadu, so the complainant travelled 70 Kms for approaching there. So the delay is caused because of the non-production of the documents in due time. This is a mistake happened from the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is distributor of the vehicle and delivers a number of vehicles. So they are not ignorant of the class of the vehicle. So it is a deficiency in service of the opposite party. So we think that the opposite party must compensate the loss caused to the complainant. No evidence produced to show that the complainant paid a lot for the taxi for the treatment of his father because of the non-registration of the vehicle in prompt time.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,050/- as per Ext.P5, and Rs.500/- as compensation for the loss incurred to the complainant and also Rs.750/- as cost of this petition, to the complainant, within one month of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of September, 2010

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the complainant :

PW1 - Nil.

On the side of the Opposite party :

DW1 - Saji Das Mohan

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Form 21 document supplied by the opposite party.

Ext.P2 - Corrected Form 21 document supplied by the opposite party with signature and seal.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the cash receipt dated 1.6.2010.

Ext.P4(a) - Copy of the cash receipt for Rs.2,50,077/-.

Ext.P4(b) - Copy of the receipt dated 17.5.2010.

Ext.P4(c) - Copy of the receipt dated 6.5.2010.

Ext.P4(d) - Copy of the receipt dated 14.5.2010.

Ext.P5 - The letter issued from the Joint Regional Transport Office, Vandipperiyar,

dated 15.9.2010.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.