Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/5/2015

Alathurumuni Sahithiteja, W/o. K.Thejokumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director, Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt., Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

V.Hema Chandra Rao

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-09-01-2015                                                                                                               Order Date:  14-10-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

 

       FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND    

SIXTEEN

C.C.No.05/2015

Between

Alathurumuni Sahithiteja,

W/o. K. Thejokumar,

Hindu, aged about 22 years,

Resident of 5-94/1, 3^rd Cross,

Bharathamitta, Pakala,

Chittoor District.                                                                   … Complainant

 

And

1.The Executive Director,

Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

11-56/1, Renigunta Road,

Tirupati Town,

Tirupati Urban Mandall,

Chittoor District.

 

2. The Executive Director,

Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

Authorized Maruthi Dealer,

22-241-A, Kattamanchi,

Tirupati Road,

Chittoor.  

 

3. The Executive Director,

Head Office, Bhargavi Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.,

25-11-97, Industrial Estate,

Dargamitta, Near A.K.Nagar,

Nellore - post Box No.B18,

Nellore District.                                                                 … Opposite parties

 

           This complaint is coming on before us for final hearing on 23.09.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, chief affidavit, written arguments of the complainant and the  opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of          Sri.V.Hemachandra Rao, counsel for the complainant and Sri. K.V.Ramana Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum for the following reliefs: 1) directing the opposite party 1 and 2 to pay the “vehicle invoice amount of Rs.4,13,018/- or to get the vehicle for permanent registration” as stated above, back to the complainant with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the dates of payment by the complainant till the date of realization and take back the vehicle and also compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant 2) directing the opposite party 1 and 2 to pay the costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant purchased four wheeler car of Maruti Wagon R VXI BSIV-WMR4CD3 for an amount of Rs.4,30,013/- on 24.06.2014 with the financial assistance of IndusInd Bank from opposite party no.1 and got temporary registration by the RTA Tirupathi by the opposite party no.1 and got the registration no.AP03UNTR3987 which is valid from 24.06.2014 to 23.07.2014 and the said vehicle was insured under National Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor under policy no.35101031146135044313, dt:15.06.2014. The complainant further submits that she submitted the necessary documents to the opposite party 1 and 2 for permanent registration of the vehicle, after receipt of the same the opposite parties failed to take steps for getting permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant further submits that she kept the vehicle idle from 24.07.2014 when the temporary registration was lapsed as the opposite parties failed to take steps in time for getting the permanent registration of the vehicle even after several requests made by the complainant. Hence the purpose of the purchase of the vehicle is defeated because of the delay of the opposite parties in getting permanent registration of the vehicle in time.  The complainant was put to great loss and inconvenience and hence finally she caused a legal notice to the opposite parties on 09.12.2014 and the notice of the opposite party no. 1 and 2 retuned with an endorsement as refused and not claimed but the opposite party no.3 did not respond and failed to take necessary steps to register the same even after receipt of  the legal notice issued by the complainant.  Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.

          3.  The opposite parties came in to appearance and the opposite party no.1 filed the written version and same was adopted by the opposite party no.2 and 3. The opposite party no.1 admitted about the sale of the vehicle to the complainant on 14.06.2014 and the said vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Limited and further contended that at the time of purchasing the vehicle the complainant furnished her address as. D.No.5-94/1, 3^rd Cross, Bharathamitta, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District. Accordingly they mentioned the above address in the invoice of the vehicle as well as in  the Insurance policy. But, at the time of issuing the temporary registration certificate, by oversight the address was wrongly typed as Tirupati Urban Mandal instead of Pakala Mandal. After issuing the temporary registration certificate and sale certificate, the complainant gone through the particulars mentioned therein and she did not question anything about the same. But the vehicle registering authority did not accepted the same for permanent registration,  then the complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party on 04.11.2014 and immediately on the same day itself, the opposite party addressed a letter to the R.T.A., Chittoor by requesting them to correct  the address in temporary registration certificate.  The R.T.A., Chittoor directed the complainant to produce her residence proof, PAN card etc., for correcting the address, but the complainant failed to furnish the above said documents. After due efforts made by the opposite partyno.1 in the month of December, 2014 the said mistake was rectified and they informed the complainant over the phone. But the complainant never approached the registering authority for the registration of the vehicle in her name. Hence they never caused any delay in registering the vehicle and the complainant never approached them for registration of the same and came with fabricated contention as she is ready and willing to register the same. Due to said reason only the vehicle is not registered in the name of the complainant till this date. The complainant is using the vehicle and she was availed service of the vehicle from the opposite party no.1 on 31.07.2014. By that time the complainant run the vehicle about 1462 Km, hence due to her own fault only the complainant has not register the vehicle. And also contended that in case of any late registration the registering authority will register the same by collecting the late fee charges from the concerned owners. Hence there is no deficiency of service and complainant is not entitled for the reliefs as prayed for and this complainant is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on their part.    

          4.  The complainant filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A14 were marked. On behalf of the opposite parties one K.Niranjan, S/o. K.Balarama Reddy, Executive Director of the Bhargavi Automobiles (P) Limited filed his evidence on affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B3. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        5.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                    towards the complainant?            

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                    what extent?           

             (iii)  To what Result?

        6. Point No:-(i).  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the car from the opposite party’s shop and the same is admitted by them. As per the contention of the complainant she purchased the car on 24.06.2014 under Ex: A1 and same was temporarily registered under Ex:A3 by the RTA, Tirupati and the registration no is AP03UNTR3987 i.e.Ex:A3 which is valid from 24.06.2014 to 23.07.2014. The complainant further contended that she approached the opposite party and submitted required documents for permanent registration of vehicle but the opposite parties failed to take the steps for registering the same which resulted the loss and inconvenience to the complainant because she took financial assistance from the IndusInd Bank Limited for the purchase of the car and she paid the loan amount regularly  and because of in action of the opposite parties to register the vehicle, she kept  the vehicle idle without running in the road. Hence the purpose of purchase of car by the complainant is defeated which is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties.

          The opposite parties filed the written version by admitting the purchase of the car by the complainant and further contended that at the time of temporary registration, by oversight in the address column instead of Chittoor it was mentioned as Tirupati Urban and the same was gone through by the complainant and she kept silent. Immediately after came to the notice of the opposite parties they applied for rectification of the mistake under Ex:A5 dt: 04.11.2014 to the RTA, Chittoor and also the complainant failed to submit the documents to them for permanent registration and take necessary steps to get the permanent registration of the vehicle and unnecessarily thrown blame on them. When the case was pending before this Forum the opposite parties filed Exs B1 to B3 stating that the vehicle was registered on 07.01.2016 itself and also the complainant as well as the counsel for the complainant failed to appear before this Forum even after granting several adjournments for advancing oral arguments which shows that the complainant is not having any interest  to prove his case and also the complainant failed to place the evidence that they approached the opposite parties several times for the registration of the vehicle and also they have not filed any documentary proof to show that they approached opposite parties several times and furnished the required documents for permanent registration of the vehicle. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof that the opposite parties delayed in registering the vehicle we cannot come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. As already the vehicle was registered on 07.01.2016 itself i.e. Ex: B3 (Permanent Registration Certificate) shows that the vehicle got permanent registration hence the purpose of the complaint is already served. Hence in the absence of any documentary proof we cannot hold the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence the contention of the complainant that there is deficiency of service on part of opposite parties is not considered. Hence this point is answered against the complainant.      

           7. Point(ii):-   As the point no.1 is discussed above and answered against the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. The complainants are not entitled for the relief as prayed for. Accordingly this point is answered.

          8.Point (iii):-    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No Costs.     

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 14^th day of October, 2016.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                          Sd/-                                                                                                        

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Alathurumuni Sahithiteja (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: K. Niranjan (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Tax/ Vehicle & Charges Invoice. Dt: 24.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Policy of National Insurance Company Limited, Chittoor.  Dt: 15.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration. Dt: 02.07.2014.
	Photo copy of Sale Certificate from Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 24.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Request for Temporary Registration Editing to the R.T.A, Chittoor.  Dt: 04.11.2014.
	Photo copy of Payment Receipt No.014.  Dt: 14.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Payment Receipt No.019.  Dt: 15.06.2014.
	Photo copy of IndusInd Bank Loan No. ANT01168C. Dt: 29.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Loan repayment schedule commence from 14.06.2014.
	Office copy of the Legal Notice to the Opposite Party. Dt: 19.12.2014.
	Refused and returned postal cover with acknowledgement. Dt: 22.12.2014.
	Intimation not claimed and returned postal cover with acknowledgement. Dt: 29.12.14.
	Photo copy of Detailed Track Events for RN499473804IN.
	True copy of Central Bank of India Statement, Pakala.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Online Copy (Photo Copy) of Registration.
2.	Photo copy of Vehicle History.. Dt: 31.07.2014.
3.	Photo copy of Registration, Registration No.AP03BS6344 for Previous Registration No.AP03UNTR3987.

 

 

 

          Sd/-

     President

 

 

                                                               // TRUE COPY //

                                                               // BY ORDER //

 

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

Copies to:  The Complainant.

                  The Opposite parties.