IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT C. RENUKAMBA (I/C)

1. This complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act to hold that the 3^rd opposite party is deficient in service by failing to renew the fitness certificate of KA-12-B-7716 of the complainant, to order the 3^rd OP to issue renewed fitness certificate of KA-12-B-7716 TATA Ace goods vehicle of the complainant, to order the 3^rd OP to pay a sum of Rs.12,676/- per month EMI payable by the complainant to the 2^nd OP till issuance of the renewed fitness certificate, to order the 3^rd OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant from 1^st October 2021 till issuance of renewed fitness certificate for loss of earning of the complainant  and grant costs of this proceedings and all such other reliefs in favour of the complainant.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows;

1. The complainant in 20/03/2019 purchased TATA M Light weight container ACE HT vehicle bearing chassis No.MAT445241JZJ62253, Engine No.2751D107JRYSF2492 from the 1^st OP by paying a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- for his self employment.  Out of this amount the complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- by cash and remaining amount was paid by the 2^nd OP.  This vehicle is hypothecated to the 2^nd OP.  The 1^st and 2^nd OP took initiative to get the registration of this vehicle done with the 3^rd OP.  The 3^rd opposite party after receipt of road tax, registration fee etc registered this vehicle and gave registration number to this vehicle as KA-12B-7716.  As this vehicle is a good vehicle used for commercial purpose for every 2^nd year once fitness certificate has to be renewed.

2. The complainant in the 1^st week of October 2021 approached the opposite party and sought for inspection of the vehicle and to issue renewal of fitness certificate.  The opposite party pulled on time and finally on 27/10/2021 gave endorsement stating that there is problem with the chip of the registration card, they are unable to proceed with and they are unable to issue renewal of the fitness certificate.  Without fitness certificate the complainant cannot ply the vehicle on the road.  Without using the vehicle the complainant cannot earn and cannot repay the loan of the 2^nd opposite party.  Since October 1^st the vehicle is kept ideal.

3. It was the duty of the opposite parties to issue proper registration certificate.  If there is issue regarding the chip of the registration certificate it the 3^rd opposite party who is responsible to set it right.  The 3^rd opposite party without setting right of their mistake and refusing to renew the fitness certificate is deficient in service.  The 3^rd opposite party is bound to issue renewed fitness certificate to the complainant’s vehicle.  The complainant cannot be made to suffer for the mistake and misdeed of the 3^rd opposite party.

4. The complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.12,676/- per month to the 2^nd opposite party.  Due to deficient act of the 3^rd opposite party the complainant is unable to use the vehicle since 1^st October 2021 and is unable to pay the EMI to the 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant has lost his earning due to the mistake and misdeed of the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant and his family are put to starving due to the misdeed of the 3^rd opposite party.  The complainant was earning a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day after all expenses from this vehicle.  As complainant has lost his earning the 3^rd opposite party is liable to pay the loss of earning of the complainant and is liable to make good of his loss.  The 3^rd opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss of the complainant.  For making the complainant run from pillar to post the 3^rd respondent is deficient in service and is liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as damages to the complainant.

5. After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties.  Inspite of service of notice opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared before this Commission and filed their version.  Opposite party no.3 is not appeared before this Commission hence placed exparte.

6. The version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows;

1. We are  not necessary parties in the above case and unnecessarily the complainant made us as opposite party.  We are nowhere connected with the case.
2. We are authorized dealers for Tata commercial vehicle.  The complainant has purchased Tata M Light weight container ACE HT vehicle bearing chassis No.MAT445241JZ62253, Engine No.2751DI07JRYSF2492 from us.  The complainant purchased the above said vehicle through loan which sanctioned by the 2^nd opposite party i.e. Cholamandalam Auto Finance, Madikeri.  This vehicle hypothecated to the 2^nd opposite party.  After purchasing of the said vehicle we have submitted the necessary copies of the documents to 2^nd opposite party as well as we have completed the temporary and permanent registration formalities before the Regional Transport Officer, Madikeri and they have given registrations number to the above said vehicle i.e. KA 12B 7716.
3. After completion of permanent registration we have submitted the original R.C smart card to the complainant.  As a dealer we have completed all our obligations.
4. Regarding the renewal of fitness certificate the complainant has filed an application before 3^rd opposite party and they have issued endorsement stating that there is problem with the chip of the registration card, they are unable to proceed with and they are unable to issue renewal of the fitness certificate.  After the completion of permanent registration we have handed over the R.C smart card to the complainant.  The above said smart card issued by 3^rd Opposite party.  And the registration details of the vehicle is very clearly shows in VAHAN portal also.  The 3^rd opposite party issued the defective smart card to the complainant.
5. So averments in the complaint is very clear that the complainant asking proper relief from 3^rd opposite party only and 3^rd opposite party is liable for the all expenditures/ damages as prayed by the complainant.  The complainant unnecessarily brought us on record and we are not the necessary part for this case.

7. The version filed by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows;

1. This opposite party is not aware that since 1^st October, the vehicle is kept idle,  after taking the financial assistance, it is the responsibility of the complainant to repay the same as agreed from any of his sources.  This opposite party is least bothered about the source of the income of the complainant.  This respondent is not aware about the rest of the averments made in para 2^nd of the complaint.

2. This opposite party is not aware of the averments made para 3 of the complaint.

3. The complainant has to pay an EMI of Rs.13,200/- to this opposite party and not Rs.12,676/- as alleged in para 5 of the complaint.  This opposite party is not aware of the remaining averments made at para 4 of the complaint.

4. On 21/3/2019, the complainant has availed financial assistance from this opposite party to purchase TATA M light weight container ACE HT vehicle.  As security for the due repayment of the said loan, he has hypothecated his vehicle in favour of this opposite party and the same is undisputed.  The complainant has agreed to pay the said loan in seventy equated monthly installments commencing from 25/4/2019 upto 25/1/2025.

5. The complainant has not been paying the installments regularly.

6. There is no cause of action to the complainant against this opposite party for filing this complaint.  Therefore, the complainant has rightly not claimed any relief against this opposite party in the complaint.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed this opposite party.

8. In this case complainant filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit evidence as CW-1 with documents marked as exhibits C-1 and C-2 and opposite party not filed his examination in chief by way of affidavit evidence. Both the counsels addressed oral Arguments.

3. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under;
   1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought ?

2. What order ?

4. Our findings on the above points are as under;

1. Point No.1 :- Partly Affirmative
2. Point No.2:-As per the final order for the        

following ;

R E A S O N S

5. Point No.1:- The complainant in 20/03/2019 purchased TATA M Light weight container ACE HT vehicle bearing chasis No.MAT445241JZJ62253, Engine No 2751D107JRYSF2492 from the 1^st opposite party by paying a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- for his self employment.  Out of this amount the complainant paid a sum of Rs.60,000/- by cash and remaining amount was paid by the 2^nd opposite party this vehicle is hypothecated to the 2^nd opposite party.  It is noticed from the documents submitted complaint, affidavit and arguments that the complainant has purchased a vehicle for self employment for which fitness certificate (F.C) has to be renewed once in every two years.  When the complainant approached for renewal in first week of October 2021, the 3^rd opposite party has issued him an endorsement dated 27/10/2021 rejecting the renewal due to problem in RC card chip.  This is observed on verification of the documents submitted.

6. It is brought to the notice of this Commission that first opposite party has no role in this instant case.  It is also noticed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd opposite party since, he has only provided financial service to the complainant. 

7. In this instant case, it is the 3^rd opposite party who has caused deficiency in service and since he has failed to appear before this Commission even on issuance of notice, this Commission passes an exparte order. 

8. 3^rd opposite party has issued RC card to the complainant which has a defective chip due to which renewal of FC has been impossible.  As per exhibit C-2 3^rd opposite party himself have admitted that the chip issued by them has defective.  This proves negligence on the part of 3^rd opposite party.  Since, there is no evidence for the statement quoted by the complainant saying he used to earn Rs.1,000/- per day from the said vehicle, this Commission cannot grant relief as per complainants prayer.  Therefore, 3^rd opposite party is liable for the damages and mental agony caused.  Hence, we answered point no.1 is partly in the affirmative.

9.  Point No.2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant against 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.
2. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to issue renewed fitness certificate of KA-12B-7716 of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which to pay compensation Rs.200/- (two hundred rupees only) per day to the complainant.
3. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.12,676/- ( Twelve thousand six hundred and seventy six only) per month EMI payable by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party till issuance of the renewed FC.
4. The 3^rd opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.500/- to the complainant from 1^st October 2021 till issuance of renewed FC from loss of earning of the complainant failing which complainant is at liberty to have a redressal as per law.
5. The 3^rd opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand rupees only) towards mental agony to the complainant.
6. The 3^rd opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand rupees only) towards cost and damages to the complainant.
7. Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties at free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Commission on this 18^th DAY OF JULY, 2022)

                (GOWRAMMANNI)                      (RENUKAMBA.C)                                                     

                      MEMBER                             PRESIDENT(I/C)                      

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant

CW-1-  Sri. Sirajuddin M.U (Complainant)

Documents marked on behalf of the complainant

Ex.C-1 : Registration certificate of the vehicle

Ex.C-2: RTO letter

Witnesses examined on behalf of the opposite parties

-Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties

  -Nil-

Dated:18/07/2022                                 PRESIDENT(I/C)