2. Addl. Registration Authority,

    Pattabhirpuram Main Road,

    Near Swami Theater, Guntur.                         … Opposite Parties

        This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      03-06-11 in the presence of Sri C.Raghu Rami Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri Narasimha Reddy (Govt. Pleader), Advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, LADY MEMBER:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite parties to issue fresh certificate of registration by rectifying the year of manufacturing as 2010 and award Rs.2,60,000/- towards compensation and costs.

2.      The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

                The complainant purchased new goods carrier vehicle from Jasper Industries Private Ltd., Vijayawada on 08-01-2010.  the complainant paid Rs.1580/- towards registration purpose and the opposite parties registered the complainant’s vehicle as AP 07TW 9499.   On 22-01-10, the opposite parties issued national permit/ tourist permit to the vehicle bearing No.N.P.P.U.C.No.AP 007/19/NPPUC/2010.  On 21-01-2010, the motor vehicle inspector inspected the complainant’s vehicle and issued certificate of fitness i.e., form-38. But the opposite parties have not handed over registration certificate relating to the vehicle.  The complainant met the opposite parties personally and requested them for RC.  The complainant kept the vehicle idle and sustained the loss about Rs.60,000/- and he constrained to pay finance to the financiers.  Then the complainant got issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party on     09-02-10.  In reply to the said notice the 1^st opposite party sent certificate of registration through speed post on 15-02-10.  In that registration certificate, the 1^st opposite party intentionally mentioned at column No.10 i.e., month and year of manufacture as 2009. The complainant actually purchased the vehicle on 08-01-10 and the same date was mentioned in the temporary certificate of registration and in that sale certificate also it is clearly mentioned at column No.8 month and year of manufacture as 01-2010.  The New India Assurance Company also issued policy in favour of complainant stating the year of manufacture as 2010.  The opposite party also issued form No.47 (authorization for tourist permit or national permit) on 22-01-10.  In that permit the opposite party also mentioned the year of manufacture as 2010.  The complainant after receiving certificate of registration by post from 1^st opposite party verified the certificate and observed that the opposite party have wrongly mentioned year of manufacture as 2009 instead of 2010.  Immediately the complainant approached the office of Secretary, Regional Transport Authority and questioned about the said issue.  Then the Superintendent of the office of opposite party told that the Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd. kept in the website that the said chassis and engine of the vehicle were manufactured in the year 2009.  The opposite party with a malafied intention issued certificate of registration with wrong entry of year of manufacture of 2009 instead of 2010 and thereby decreased the value of vehicle, which caused loss to the complainant.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence, the complaint.

3.      The 1^st opposite party filed its version and the same is adopted by 2^nd opposite party, which is in brief as follows:

                It is true that the complainant purchased the goods vehicle of Tata Motors Limited bearing chassis No.NAT44402691N27781, engine No.697TC57NQZ118932 and got registered with registration No.AP 07TW 94499 with national permit No.NPPUC No.AP 007/19/NPPUC/2010.  but after due verification of registration papers it is noticed that there is mistake committed by the dealer i.e., Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada in mentioning the month and year of manufacture of the vehicle as 01-2010 instead of 12-2009 and issued TR No.AP16TLTR4496 valid from 08-01-10 to 06-02-10  further as could be seen from Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) Report  code for the month and year of production, position of the code for the year of production in Chassis No. is the 10^th digit from left.  In respect of present vehicle the 10^th digit from left in chassis No. is ‘9’, which indicates the year of manufacture.  This authority sought for clarification from the dealer regarding the month and year of manufacture as 01-2010 but no explanation was received from them till date and so a correction was made by this authority at column No.10 of the registration certificate of vehicle.  It is only the mistake of the dealer in mentioning the month and year of manufacture as          01-2010 in form No.21 for the reasons best known to them could be to benefit the purchaser by changing the model of the vehicle. 

        The delay in delivering registration certificate to the complainant is only due to the reason mentioned above i.e., mentioning the model of vehicle as 2010 instead of 2009 by the dealer but not for any other reason.  The date of purchase of vehicle is not a criteria in deciding the year of manufacture.  The data entered by the dealer in computer while issuing temporary registration certificate dt.08-01-10 and form No.21 i.e., invoice will be automatically be generated in the office computers and this authority is not at fault in mentioning the year of manufacture and it is only as per prevailing system in the transport department after communization.  Therefore, this opposite party is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.             Complainant and 1^st opposite party have filed their respective affidavits.  Ex.A1 to A12 are marked on behalf of complainant and Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of 1^st opposite party. 

6.     Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

7.      POINTS 1 & 2

                The complainant purchased the vehicle from Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd. with chassis No.NAT44402691N27781, engine No.697TC57NQZ118932 and got registered with registration No.AP 07TW 94499 with national permit No.NPPUC No.AP 007/19/NPPUC/2010. The opposite parties while giving registration certificate have mentioned month and year of manufacture as 2009.  The complainant alleged that he has purchased the vehicle on             08-01-10 and invoice is also dated as the same day and in the sale certificate (form 21) issued by Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vijayawada the month and year of manufacture is mentioned as 01-2010 and the opposite party has wrongly given registration certificate with wrong entry of month and date of manufacture as 2009.

8.             The opposite party submitted that they verified ARAI Report, in which a column was specifically given to notify the position of code for the year of production.  In that column the tenth place digit of the chassis number of the vehicle indicates the year of manufacture.  The tenth digit of the chassis number of the vehicle in issue is ‘9’ (NAT4440269IN27781) as indicated in the ARAI form.  Basing on this code, the opposite party had come to conclusion that the said vehicle was manufactured in 2009. 

9.             Therefore, Forum cannot find any fault with the opposite parties as they gave certificate mentioning year of manufacture as 2009 after duly verifying the data placed by ARAI.  If the same vehicle is sold in 2011, we cannot say it is of 2011 model.  It is the position of the code for the year of production that determines the year of manufacture and the model. Thus there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The opposite parties neither had to issue fresh registration certificate retyping the year of manufacture nor to pay compensation.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.      

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 8^th day of June, 2011.     

             Sd/- x x x                               Sd/- x x x                             Sd/- x x x      

          MEMBER                               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For 1^st opposite party:

                                                                                               Sd/- x x x

                                                                               PRESIDENT