DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 61 of 2021.
Date of hearing : 04.04.2023.
Date of order : 09.05.2023.
Dated the 09th day of May 2023.
Sarada Nath,
W/o:-Pradeep Kumar Nath,
At:-Samaraipur Prachinagar,
P.S:- Bhadrak(R), Dist:-Bhadrak.,
The Regd. Owner of the vehicle,
bearing Regd. No.OR-09G-5907 (Truck),
Mob. No.- 9438437919. ………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
1. The R.T.O., Bhadrak,
At/Po/PS/Dist:-Bhadrak.
2. The R.T.O., Gumla (Jharkhand)
At/Po/Dist:-Gumla (Jharkhand).
.…………Opp. parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant : SriB.K. Swain, Advocate & Associates,
Counsel for the Opp. Parties : None.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. These 0Ps even after receiving notice multiple times failed to appear before this commission hence they are set ex-parte. The complaint is taken up for final disposal on an ex-parte hearing.
Facts of the case is that, the complainant is the bonafide registered owner of the vehicle i.e. Truck, bearing Regd. No. OR-09G-5907. The O.Ps are Transport Registering Authority of Bhadrak & Gumla in the state of Odisha & Jharkhand respectively. The aforesaid vehicle was originally registered on dt.27.03.2006 by the Registering Authority, Keonjhar (Odisha) in the name of Dhirendra Swain S/o:-Madhusudan Swain of Kenduapada, Dist:- Bhadrak, Odisha. Owner of the aforesaid vehicle has paid the M.V. Tax from time to time upto 31.03.2017 at Keonjhar as admissible under the Orissa Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1975 and Rules made there under. Then the owner of the said vehicle has changed his place of business from Keonjhar to Bhadrak & obtained NOC from RTO, Keonjhar vide Letter No.5758, dt.06.12.2016 & continued payment of tax at Bhadrak with effect from 01.04.2017. In the meanwhile the aforesaid owner sold the vehicle and the ownership of the vehicle was changed to the name of the present complainant with proper documents on 06.09.2019 & the complainant has availed the registration certificate from the office of the O.P.No.1. So, the complainant became absolute owner of the said vehicle. This present dispute arose when the complainant applied for online permit, it was noticed that the said vehicle is lying online registered at Bhadrak (Odisha State)& Gumla (Jharkhand State) at both places & the said vehicle has been paid tax at the region of O.P.No.2 from 01.07.2013 to 31.03.2016 in addition to payment of tax at Keonjhar. Due to wrong entry of data base operation, the vehicle is now lying in the name of the old owner namely Sandip Kharanga from 27.03.2006 to 06.09.2019 with owner Sl. No.2 jointly & also in the name of another person namely Syed Ejaj Ahmad from 07.08.2006 to 23.11.2015 with the same as owner Sl.No.2 & on the papers of authority in respect to the said vehicle is shown as without payment of tax from 27.03.2006 at the region of O.P.No.2. O.P.No.1 has sent several letters to the O.P.No.2 for the early disposal of the matter, but till now no step has been taken by O.P.No.2. The vehicle is lying registered wrongly on the papers of registering authority in both the states. So, it is a serious mistake committed by the O.Ps for which the present complainant is facing much more trouble & the plying of the said vehicle has become a question now. Due to this unfortunate wrong recording in respect to the said vehicle, complainant is suffering mentally and financially. Her vehicle is not able to run on the road since two years back i.e. from 06.09.2019, the date on which she purchased the said vehicle. So, the complainant woman has to go through heavy mental agony for no fault on her part. To maintain her family, she has purchased the said vehicle to do the transport business & to maintain her family & children. But, for this type of wrong registration & inordinate delay in correction of the said error, she is now unable to maintain her family as the vehicle was her only source of income. For the delaying procedure of O.P.No.2, complainant is not able to generate any income to maintain her family & children. The complainant for several times has been to the O.P.No.1 for a quick disposal of matter, as she will be able to run her vehicle, but taking the plea that the O.P.No.2 is not responding any, for which the O.P.No.1 is quite undone to do any needful for resolving the dispute at its level. The O.Ps have committed negligence in providing service to the complainant & failed to resolve the dispute. So, the complainant has been seriously suffered. She has got a loss about Rs.40,000/- per month X 23 months which comes to an amount of Rs.9,20,000/- & towards interest @ 9 % for the same comes to a sum of Rs.80,000/- & as such she has suffered a financial loss of Rs.10,00,000/-. As such the O.Ps are liable to pay the same & compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant for their default as the O.Ps have committed gross negligence & default in rendering service to the complainant & caused harassment to the complainant for which they are liable to compensate the complainant with cost.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel and after carefully considering the documents and pleadings, this Commission finds it proper to frame the following issues to settle the consumer complaint:-
- Whether OPs have committed deficiency & negligence in providing service which caused mental harassment to the complainant?
- If so then to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
It is beyond any doubt that a vehicle can not be registered at 2 Registering Authorities. It is certainly a glitch of the computer data base. It is clear from the vehicular documents filed by the complainant that the pre-owned vehicle has been transferred to her name by OP No.1. It should have verified all aspects of the vehicle before transferring the ownership. As OP No.1 was negligent in discharging its duties, the complainant is suffering now without any fault on her part. It is matter of concern that in the ages of digitalization & advanced data technolgy such a mistake could not be traced for such a long period. It appears from the pleadings of the complainant at Para-6 that OP No.1 has communicated in writing several times to OP No.2 but OP No.2 did not respond. OP No.2 being a government official can put a deaf ear to the plights of the consumers. The complainant has paid full consideration while purchasing the vehicle, thereafter paid the required fees to transfer of ownership to her name. She has the right to use the vehicle up to its full potential. But due to the wrong data base entry, she is unable to obtain permit against her purchased vehicle. There is no doubt in the mind of this commission that both these OPs have committed deficiency in service and negligence for which the complainant is sustaining loss in business, unnecessary inconvenience and harassment. So Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Admittedly, the vehicle has been purchased and ownership was transferred on 06/09/2019 but the case has been filed on 27/10/2021. There is no evidence that the vehicle was not plying within these 2 years. There is a Pollution Certificate filed by the complainant which shows a date of testing as 14/07/2021. Further, the advocate notice sent by the complainant to these OPs is reflecting a date of 19/07/2021. The Goods Permit Part-A & B issued by Transport Department, Odisha filed by complainant shows that it the Permit is valid upto 30/01/2022 and it stands in name of the complainant, after the same being transferred to her name from 04/09/2019. So, it is hard to believe that the vehicle was not plying within these periods. Now so far as the Issue No.2 is concerned, the quantum of loss as pleaded by the complainant is astronomical. So this commission not inclined to buy the argument of complainant that she sustained a business loss about Rs.40,000/- per month X 23 months which comes to an amount of Rs.9,20,000/-. But the complainant needs to be compensated for the inconvenience and harassment she faced due to the deficiency in service of these OPs for making wrong entries and for not correcting the entry even after the advocate notice.
O R D E R.
In the result complaint is partly allowed in favour of the complainant and against these OPs. These OPs are directed to delete the wrong and multiple entries in respect of the case vehicle i.e. OR-09G-5907 in all their concerned data bases within 30 days of receipt of this order. Failing which both these OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant. No cost to any parties.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 09th day of May 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
