DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL,
PHULBANI
C.C.NO.30 OF 2018
Present: Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattnaik - President I/c
Sri Purnachandra Tripathy - Member.
Gunanidhi Pradhan .
At: Housing Board Colony, QR No. L 2/39,
Kendupadar, Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal …………. Complainant.
Versus.
1. The Managing Director,
Tata Motors,Sahid Nagar,
Near Rupali Square, BBSR, Odisha.
2. Regional Transport Officer,
Bhubaneswar-II,Plot No. 306/1818/3717,
Bansi bihar, Patia on Nandan Kanan
Main Road PO: Bhubaneswar, Odisha . ……………… Opp. Parties.
For the Complainant: Self
For the O.Ps: Self.
Date of Order: 16th March 2021.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant had a Car (Indigo CS) bearing Regd No.OD-33-G-5323 with Chassis No. MAT607341FPF24445 which was registered under R.T.O -II, Bhubaneswar. The fitness certificate which issued on the date of registration was valid till on 06-04-2018. Thereafter the complainant went to R.T.O-II, Bhubaneswar for renewal of the same and deposited the required fees along with documents of the vehicle. During the inspection conducted by the M.V.I, refused to renew the fitness of the vehicle with a ground that the chassis number of the vehicle has been manipulated and chassis number not visible and instructed the complainant to deposit an amount of Rs 4000/-for issuing the OT number against the chassis number of the above vehicle. On 09-04-2018 the Complainant had paid Rs. 4,000/- and on dated 19/04/2018 the OT number issued against the above vehicle with an instruction to emboss the OT number over the body of the vehicle in order to renew the fitness certificate .The complainant accordingly embossed the given OT number on a separate plate and affixed on the body of the vehicle. Thereafter on production of the said vehicle before the M.V.I, RTO –II, Bhubaneswar for inspection and granting of fitness certificate but the concerned M.V.I refused to grant the renewal of fitness certificate solely on a ground that the OT number was embossed on a separated plate. The RTO-II , Bhubaneswar sought a clarification from Tata Motors in connection with chassis number of the disputed vehicle , and in response to the same TATA Motors issued a letter of clarification vide dated.27-08-2018 where the manufacturer clearly mentioned that the chassis number of the vehicle embossed in two place of the vehicle i.e. behind the driver seat and on the bonate of the vehicle .Further the Tata motors certified that the chassis Number of the vehicle is correct and clearly visible on behind the driver seat but on the other one has been tampered. On dated 06/09/2018 the Complainant approached the Tata Motors for embossing of the O.T number over the body, but the Tata Motors refused with a ground that the embossing over the body of the vehicle is not possible. Thereafter on the direction of the A.R.T.O, the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 7,650/- towards fine and went with official staff of OP to Khandagiri where the O.T No-332018040441 was embossed under the bonate of the vehicle. On dated 10/10/2018 the complainant applied the fitness on payment of Rs. 1200/- , and accordingly the fitness certificate issued by the OP. The complainant alleged that all the acts mentioned above was done as per the oral instruction of the authority time to time, even if the chassis number was intact and correct. The complainant vehemently stated that the O.T number issued by the OP No-2 is contrary to the provision of law and with an intention to harass and gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP No-2. For the aforementioned circumstances the complainant filed this complaint with a prayer to issue direction to the OP No- 2 to refund Rs. 1, 96,950/-which the complainant paid towards fine imposed by the OP No- 2 and other charges levied by the OP No- 2 for issuance of fitness certificate, and for mental agony and harassment. After perusal of the complaint petition and relevant documents the case of the complainant admitted and issued notice to the OPs.On receipt of the notice, the OP No- 2 appeared and filed version, on the other hand the complainant filed a memo to delete the OP No- 1 as party from this case.
From the version it is ascertained that the Complainant is the registered owner of vehicle No. OD33G-5323 bearing Engine No. 4751DT14FUYP34390 & Chassis No. MAT607341FPF24445 and the fitness certificate was issued on 05/04/2016 with a validation till 06/04/2018. On expiry of the fitness of the mentioned vehicle, the Complainant applied for renewal of the fitness certificate .During the inspection of the vehicle, it was found that the original chassis of the vehicle replaced for which the OT No-332018040441 was allotted by OP No- 2 as per the prescribed circular of Transport Commissioner, odisha. The OP No- 2 stated in the version that the complainant was advised to punch the (OT) chassis no. OT332018040441 on its body and produce the same for renewal of fitness certificate. In pursuance of the Circular No-05 of 2016 issued by the Transport Commissioner, prior to renewal of fitness certificate, the MVI should take out the pencil print of Engine Number and Chassis Number and upload it in the Central Server . But the Complainant did not produce the vehicle for which the renewal process could not proceed further. The OP No- 2 also express through the version that on payment of Rs 50/- per day towards additional fees from 07/04/2018 onwards, the application for renewal of fitness certificate will be considered. The OP No- 2 raised the objection that the case of the complainant is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant in support of his case filed the evidence in shape of an affidavit and some relevant documents. After careful examination of the petition, version and the documents from both the side , we are of the considered view that the allegation of the OP No- 2 regarding the replacement of the chassis number of the vehicle is not acceptable as the Tata Motors confirmed the chassis number of the vehicle behind the driver seat is correct and also stated that the chassis number of the above vehicle embossed in two place one is behind the driver seat and another is on the bonate of the vehicle , so there is no reasonable ground to disbelieve the allegation of the complainant regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the OP No- 2 for not renewed the fitness certificate . Similarly we do not agree with the OP No- 2 that the complainant is not a consumer, under section 2 (d) (ii) of C.P Act 1986 clearly speaks that any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised. In this case the complainant has paid the required fees as instructed by the OP No- 2 for renewal of the fitness certificate, but the OP No- 2 fails to provide such service to the complainant, result of which the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony. Hence Order.
O R D E R
The present complaint is allowed against the OP No- 2 for deficiency of service and negligence in rendering proper service towards the complainant. Therefore the OP No.2 is hereby directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs 10,000/- towards the litigation cost and other expenses to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order .Failing which all the awarded amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order to till the date of payment. Accordingly the C.C disposed off.
The order pronounced in the open court on this 16th March 2021. Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
