IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 17th day of July, 2020.
Filed on 27-07-2017
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.C.K.Lekhamma, B.A, LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.202/2017
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.C.P.Vijayan 1. The Manager
S/o Purushothaman East Venice Motors
Chaniyil house, Alappuzha.
Thuravoor South (By Adv.Jayan C Das)
Thirumalabhagam P.O. 2. Block Development Officer
Thuravoor, Cherthala Pattanakkadu Block Panchayath Office
(By Adv.E.D.Zacharias) Pattanakkadu P.O., Cherthala
3. The ICDS Officer
ICDS Office, Thuravoor P.O.
Cherthala.
O R D E R
SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Brief facts are as follows:-
In a joint venture the Pattanakkad Block Panchayath and ICDS office Thuravoor had given three wheeled Hero pleasure scooter to the complainant under the scheme intended for the physically handicapped persons. Complainant is a beneficiary since he is physically handicapped. The condition of the vehicle was very worse and the complainant couldn’t ply the vehicle morethan 26 kilometres. When intimated to the first opposite party as per their direction the vehicle was taken by the proprietor of M/s S.S motors, Chandiroor on 28.04.2017. The vehicle was not returned after repairs.
2. On 15.05.2017 complainant issued a notice to the 1st opposite party and the proprietor of M/s S.S motors and thereafter the vehicle was returned after curing the defect. The entire amount for the vehicle was spent by the Pattanakkad Block Panchayath. They informed that the entire proceedings for the permanent registration will be done by the 1st opposite party. The complainant contacted 1st opposite party on several occasions. Though it was assured that permanent registration of the vehicle will be done it was not complied. Hence there is dereliction of the service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had taken temporary registration No.KL-04-X 9313 in the name of the complainant and insurance of the vehicle was also taken in his name. The entire proceedings for getting permanent registration and insurance will be done by the opposite parties since it was delivered under special scheme for physically handicapped persons. The vehicle was temporarily registered on 25-03-2017 and it elapsed on 21-04-2017. There is dereliction of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties which caused mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, frustration, disgrace etc. for which complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. Direction may be given to the opposite parties to initiate steps for getting permanent registration.
3. Opposite parties 2 and 3 remained ex-parte. 1st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-
There is no delay in delivering the vehicle and a minor complaint occurred was cleared without any delay. After getting temporary registration complainant was requested to produce the vehicle before the Regional Transport Office, Cherthala for getting permanent registration. The vehicle was not produced before the Regional Transport office inspite of several request directly and by one Sabu S/o Francis who is an agent. Hence permanent registration was not obtained for the vehicle. There is no deficiency of service and hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled for direction against the opposite parties for taking steps for permanent registration of the vehicle?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation?
3. Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consist of the oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 from the side of the 1st opposite party.
6. Point No.1 & 2
For the sake of convenience these points are considered together. The case advanced by PW1, the complainant is that as per a scheme of opposite party 2 and 3 he was allotted a 3 wheeled scooter since he is handicapped. The vehicle was delivered by opposite party No.1. Though a temporary registration was obtained at the time of delivering the vehicle opposite parties did not take any steps for obtaining permanent registration. Hence the vehicle is lying idle at his house and he could ply only 26 kilometres. 1st opposite party filed a version contenting that there was no deficiency of service from their part. Inspite of repeated request the vehicle was not produced before the Regional Transport Office, Cherthala and so permanent registration could not be obtained. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 temporary certificate of registration, Ext.A2 copy of insurance certificate, Ext.A3 lawyers notice, Ext.A4 postal receipt and Ext.A5 AD card were marked. The service manager of 1st opposite party got examined as RW1. Admittedly PW1 is a beneficiary of 3 wheeled scooter supplied by opposite party No.1 under a scheme of opposite party No.2 and 3. The only allegation levelled against opposite parties is that permanent registration was not taken by them. Admittedly the vehicle was supplied by opposite party No.1 and at that time temporary registration and insurance were taken which is evidenced from Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 documents. It is the case of PW1 that opposite parties No.2 and 3 had assured that the permanent registration will be taken by 1st opposite party. The case advanced in the version as well as in the chief affidavit of RW1 is that inspite of repeated request complainant did not produce the vehicle before the Regional Transport Office, Cherthala.
7. As a matter of fact for getting permanent registration the vehicle has to be produced before the Regional Transport Office, Cherthala. The grievance of complainant is that opposite parties did not take any action to get permanent registration. On the contrary according to opposite party No.1 inspite of repeated requests it was not produced by PW1 before the Regional Transport Office. Ext.A1 and A2 shows that at the time of delivery of the vehicle temporary registration of the vehicle and insurance was taken for 1 year. Though PW1 claims that deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties he has not produced even a scrap of paper that there was such an agreement. Under normal circumstances the duty of the dealer is to get a temporary certificate of registration at the time of delivery of vehicle and thereafter it is the duty of the owner to get permanent registration before the expiry of the period of one month. Otherwise there should be an agreement or undertaking from the part of the opposite parties to get permanent registration. Here in this case though PW1 alleges that it was the duty of the opposite parties to take permanent registration for which opposite party No.1 received amount not even a scrap of paper is produced to prove the same. PW1 failed to prove that there is an agreement between himself and opposite parties for taking permanent registration. Without such an agreement it cannot be said that there was deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. In such circumstances we cannot agree with the case advanced by the complainant and give any relief to him as claimed in the complainant. These points are found against the complainant.
Point No.3
In the result complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only).
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the 17th day of July 2020.
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar (President)
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - C.P.Vijayan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Temporary certificate of registration
Ext.A2 - Copy of insurance certificate
Ext.A3 - Lawyers notice
Ext.A4 - Postal receipt
Ext.A5 - AD Card
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ganesh Kumar (Witness)
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Sa/-
Compared by:-
