SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint for realization of compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant purchased a Tata Spacio SA’s manufactured by the 1st opp.party on 19.8.2004. At the time of purchase the Government offered Rs.22,000/- as subsidy for plying the vehicle as Taxi. The Engine No. of Vehcile is 4975P27CV2871140. But the engine No marked in the vehicle is 4975P227CV2871148. So the RTO authorities denied the registration of the vehicle. After several times at last on 23.9.04 the engine no. was corrected and the registration formalities were completed. But the authorities denied to grant subsidy on the ground that the registration of the vehicle was delayed by one and a half month. The temporary permit of the vehicle was also expired. For renewal of the same, the complainant had to remit Rs.1,000/- additionally. The action of the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The claim is barred by limitation and therefore the complaint is to be dismissed inlimine. The complainant had purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and engages paid drivers to operated the same. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2[1][d] of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has no allegation in the complaint that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. Hence this opp.party is an unnecessary party to the proceedings and so the complaint is bad for misjoinder of unnecessary party. It is admitted that the complainant had taken delivery of a Tata Spacio vehicle from the showroom of the 2nd opp.party on 19.8.2004 after personally inspecting the vehicle . This opp.party has no knowledge of the subsidy offered by the Government . After taking delivery, the complainant approached the 2nd opp.party with a complaint that the number of the engine of the vehicle as shown in the vehicle and as described in the invoice are different and therefore he was unable to register the vehicle. The 2nd opp.party on examination found that there was difference in the engine number and as they could not correct the mistake informed this opp.party of the said facts. It was by an inadvertent mistake that the discrepancy happened . This opp.party without any undue delay after verifying the records corrected the mistake. On correction of the mistake the vehicle was registered within one month and four days of the purchase. This opp.party is in no way liable or responsible for the alleged expiry of the temporary registration of the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of this opp.party. Hence the first opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed a separate version with more or less identical contention. The 2nd opp.party also contend that there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence the 2nd opp.party also prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation 2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext.P1 to P4 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence for the opp.party Points: The contention of the opp.parties is that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued by the opp.party that the vehicle was purchased by the complainant on 19.8.04, but the complaint was filed on13.11.2006 which is beyond 2 years stipulated in Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the complainant there is no delay. It is argued that though the vehicle was purchased on 19.8.04 there was discrepancy in the engine number on the vehicle and in the invoice of the vehicle which resulted in delay in registering the vehicle and by the time the vehicle was registered after 1½ month the subsidy of Rs.22,000/- offtered by the Government was lapsed. Therefore Ext.P4 Advocate notice was issued to the opp.party on 11.1.2006 for which the opp.party issued Ext.P4 replay notice agreeing to examine the merits of the case and not to initiate legal proceedings. Therefore, the period of limitation will commence only from the date of Ext.P4 and as such the contention that the complaint is barred by limitation is unsustainable. Point found accordingly. The complainant is claiming of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc. The case of the complaint is that due to difference in the engine number of the vehicle in the invoice and on the vehicle there occurred delay in registering the vehicle and by the time the vehicle was registered after the subsidy was denied, on the ground that the registration was delayed. But no material was produced to establish that there was an offer of subsidy of Rs.22,000/-. Admittedly there is delay in registration of the vehicle due to the discrepancy of the number of the engine in the vehicle in the invoice. The contention of the opp.party is that the discrepancy has crept in due to inadvertence. That contention cannot be accepted. No evidence was adduced by the opp.party in this regard and therefore their contention that the mistake was due to inadvertence cannot be accepted. It is an undisputed fact that the registration of the vehicle was delayed. In the absence of evidence to show that this was due to an inadvertence mistake on the side of the opp.party, the complainant is entitled to get compensation for same. However, in the absence of any material to show that there was subsidy offered by the Government, the complainant is not entitled to get the subsidy amount. The issuance of invoice with incorrect engine number by the opp.party amounts to deficiency in service. Though a contention was advanced by the opp.party in their version that there is no allegation of deficiency in service that contention is unsustainable in the light of averment in para No.5 in the complaint. For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.party to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 13.11.2006 till the payment. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order. Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Joseph Nazarath PW.2. – Sathyan List of documents for the complainant P1. – Sales certificate P2. – Advocate Notice P3. – Reply Notice P4. – Reply notice by opp.party | 
