This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Bendadi Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for opposite parties No.1 and 2; Sri. Y. Subrahmanyam, Advocate for opposite party No.3; upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O  R  D  E  R

(Per Sri R.Kiran Kumar, Member)

          This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant had purchased Omni Bus of Tata Motors Ltd., vide TR.No.AP-16-UC-TR-0399 through the Finance Company of opposite parties No.1 and 2 on                 11-08-2011.  The complainant submitted that on submission of all necessary documents the authorities of opposite parties No.1 and 2 handed over the vehicle to the complainant on the same day, subsequently he approached the opposite parties No.1 and 2 so many times for registration, but the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are postponing the registration on one pretext or the other.  The complainant further submitted that she is facing much inconvenience and troubles  in plying the vehicle on the road, due to non-registration of the vehicle, the RTA authorities seized the vehicle on 21-09-2011 and the complainant had paid Rs.14,125/- towards penalty  vide release order dt. 22-09-2011.  The complainant further submitted that she has paid Rs.15,444/- towards installment to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide cash receipt dt. 05-11-2011, due to non-registration of vehicle she is unable to ply the vehicle, she is getting loss of income @Rs.1,000/- per day from 01-09-2011 in total he got loss of income of Rs.1,20,000/- due to the negligent act of the opposite parties No.1 and 2.  The complainant further submitted that the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have to pay the penalty amount of Rs.14,125/- to the complainant, for that she issued notice on 02-01-2012 and the same was served against opposite parties No.1 and 2 but they did not choose to give reply.  The complainant further submitted that due the negligent act of the opposite parties No.1 and 2, she get not only financial loss and also suffered mental agony for that she constrained to file this complaint.

3.      On behalf of the complainant, the following documents were filed and marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4:-

Ex.A-1:-Photocopy of Invoice dt, 11-08-2011 of Tata Motors Jasper Industries Pvt. Ltd,.

Ex.A-2:-Photocopy of release order dt.22-09-2011issued by RTA authorities.

Ex.A-3:-Photocopy of Cash Receipt for Rs.15,444/-, dt. 05-11-2011.

Ex.A-4:-Office copy of legal notice dt.02-01-2012 along with postal receipts (Nos.2) and Acknowledgements (nos.2).

4.      While the matter is pending complainant filed a petition to implead the dealer of the vehicle who has failed to handover the original documents, vide IA.No.68/2014 Under Order 1 Rule 10 r/w. Sec.151 C.P.C. praying to implead the dealer of the vehicle as proposed party i.e. Jasper Industries Ltd., Tata Motors, Gudavalli, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District and the same was allowed.  

5.      On receipt of notice opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed counter.  In their counter, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 admitted the transaction, and submitted that after thorough verification they sanctioned loan in favour of complainant and the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have issued cheque bearing No.965690 of ING Vysya Bank Ltd., dt.31-08-2011 for an amount of Rs.3,84,556/- in favour of dealer.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 further submitted that the dealer has received the cheque and handed over the vehicle to the complainant, all documents were prepared by the dealers for registration, as dealers are received cheque from the opposite parties, they should mention the financiers name in registration as Hypothecators and complainant name as owner.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 further submitted that the dealers has handed over vehicle to the complainant and directed her to complete registration process, the complainant without sending the Omni bus for registration, directly brought the bus on road for doing business and used the vehicle on road for commercial purpose for that the RTA authorities imposed fine.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 further submitted that it is not the duty of them to make registration, whenever they has issued cheque in favour of dealers in time they had discharged their obligation and after delivering the vehicle to the complainant by the dealers, it is the duty of the complainant to hand over copy of registration set to the opposite parties, but the complainant negligently run the vehicle without registration and paid penalties.  The opposite parties No.1 and 2 further submitted that there is no negligence on their part and the complainant is not entitled to any claim against them when they had discharged their duty by issuing cheque in favour of dealer and the dealers are only the competent persons to make registration as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6.      The opposite party No.3 denied the entire allegations made by the complainant in the complaint against them.  The opposite party No.3 submitted that they processed the papers for registration as per the procedure of the RTA and as per the Registration Act, temporary registration is valid for one month.  The opposite party No.3 further submitted that they are not responsible for any loss caused to the complainant and the dispute is between opposite parties No.1 and 2 and they are always giving best services to the complainant and will continue to do so and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.      Written arguments of complainant and opposite party No.3 filed.

8.      Heard oral arguments from both sides.

9.      Upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upon hearing the arguments, the points that arose for consideration is,

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

Point :-

In this case the complainant had purchased Omni Bus of Tata Motors Ltd., vide TR.No.AP-16-UC-TR-0399 through the Finance Company of opposite parties No.1 and 2 on 11-08-2011.  Subsequently she approached the opposite parties No.1 and 2 for registration so many times, but the opposite parties No.1 and 2 are postponing the registration on one pretext or the other.  According to the complainant, she is facing much inconvenience and troubles  in plying the vehicle on the road, due to non-registration of the vehicle the RTA authorities seized the vehicle on            21-09-2011 and the complainant had paid Rs.14,125/- towards penalty vide release order dt. 22-09-2011.  She has paid Rs.15,444/- towards installment to the opposite parties No.1 and 2 vide cash receipt                    dt. 05-11-2011.  According to the complainant due to non-registration of the vehicle she is unable to ply the vehicle and she is getting loss of income @Rs.1,000/- per day from 01-09-2011 in total she got loss of income of Rs.1,20,000/-. According to the complainant due to the negligent act of the opposite parties she suffered not only financial loss, also suffered mental agony for that the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

From the documents and material available on record there is no dispute about purchasing the vehicle from the opposite parties by the complainant.   As per the written arguments submitted by the opposite party No.3 the complainant had obtained permanent registration                   on 24-02-2012, which is prior to filing of this complaint.  According to the written arguments submitted by the opposite party No.3 it is the bounded duty of the owner / complainant to obtain permanent registration of the vehicle before plying on road as per the Motor Vehicle Act. Due to the own negligence, the complainant   paid the fine amount imposed by the RTA authorities. 

From the documents and material available on record we observed that it is the bounden duty of the complainant that she has to go for permanent registration of her vehicle.  After obtaining permanent registration only she can ply the vehicle on the road as per the M.V.  Act.   But in this case the complainant plied the vehicle without permanent registration and paid the fine amount imposed by the RTA authorities.  From the documents it is clear that the temporary registration is valid from the date of purchase of the vehicle i.e. from 11-08-2011 to 09-09-2011 only.   Immediately after completion of the date of temporary registration, she has to go for permanent registration but the complainant not cared to follow the rules and regulations of the M.V. Act, for that it can be inferred that the complainant was negligent in following the Rules.  In view of the above we cannot fasten any liability against the opposite parties as such this point is answered against the complainant. 

10.    In view of aforesaid discussion, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the  30^th day of January, 2017.

  Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

-None-                                                                            -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party   

 Member                  FAC President             

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam