Andhra Pradesh
Chittoor-II at triputi
CC/45/2018
G.S. Sudhakar, S/o G.Swamydoss - Complainant(s)
Versus
The Regional Transport Officer - Opp.Party(s)
G.Guru prasad
21 Jun 2019
ORDER
Filing Date: 23-03-2018 Order Date: 21-06-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.
Present: - Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)
Smt.T.Anitha, Member
FRIDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN
C.C.No.45/2018
Between
G.S.Sudhakar, S/o. G.Swamydoss,
Hindu, aged about 41 years,
Residing at D.No.15-2, Panchali Nagar,
Renigunta, Chittoor District. … Complainant
And
- Regional Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Office,
Mangalam Road, Tirupati,
Chittoor District.
- The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Rep. by its Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Adithya Towers,
Balaji Colony, Tirupati. … Opposite parties
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 12.06.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Guru Prasad, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.M.Balakrishnama Naidu, counsel for the opposite party No.1 and A.Archana, counsel for the opposite party No.2 having stood over till this day and for consideration, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER
ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH
This complaint is filed by the complainant under sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, complaining the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party No.1 to cancel the R.C. of the stolen motor vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 and also to delete the entry of the theft vehicle in the records of RTO and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2.The brief facts of the case are: the complainant is having two wheeler motor bike Bajaj Pulsar ISO DTS bearing registration No.AP03-AF-5105 and the above said bike was stolen on 02.07.2010 between 4.30 p.m. to 5.15 p.m. when it was parked near Swarna ENT hospital, Tirupati. Accordingly the complainant gave a complaint in CCS police station and the case was registered in Crime No.297/2010 on 10.07.2010 and after investigation, the case was referred as undetectable on 30.10.2010 and the final report was submitted by the CCS Police Tirupati to the Hon’ble 2nd Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati.
3. The complainant further submits that, as the above said bike was having insurance policy bearing No. 612700/31/09/01/0000/6238 by the date of the theft with the opposite party No.2 insurance company, he submitted claim and it was settled for Rs. 33,790/- and also submitted original key of the vehicle, RC of the vehicle and final police report to the opposite party No.2 at the time of submission of claim. The complainant further submits that the opposite party No.2 intimated the opposite party No.1 i.e RTO of Tirupati on 01.03.2011 that the claim was settled for the stolen vehicle of the complainant and requested to record the theft of the vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 which was registered in their records and take necessary action. But till date the opposite party No.1 has not taken any action for the cancellation of the registration of the bike bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 in their records.
The complainant further submits that on 21.07.2016 he purchased Honda Motor Cycle for Rs.72,632/- from Sagar Honda Co.Ltd., Tirupati and paid tax of Rs.6,540/- and temporary registration fee of Rs.30/- to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 issued a temporary registration bearing No.AP03-VBTR-9947 for the new vehicle of the complainant. The complainant requested the RTO of Tirupati to register his new bike and issue RC in his name, but the opposite party No.1 insisted to pay additional amount of Rs.3630/- instead of Rs.635/- towards life tax on the ground that the complainant already having a motor vehicle in his name bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. In that connection the complainant submits that, the opposite party No.1 without cancelling and deleting the entry of the stolen vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 in their records even after receipt of information from the opposite party No.2 which is the insurance company is contrary to the rules and regulations and same amounts to deficiency of service. If RTO cancel the RC of the stolen bike bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 and entered the same in their records, he need not pay an amount of Rs.3,630/- to the RTO for new registration. The complainant further submits that he made several requests to the opposite party No.1 to cancel the RC of stolen bike and caused legal notice twice to the opposite party no.1 and served the copy to the opposite party No.2 on 20.09.2016 and on 09.12.2016, but even after receipt of the said notice the opposite party No.1 neither complied nor gave any reply. Hence by the action of the opposite party No.1 he suffered a lot as the opposite party No.1 failed to cancel the registration of the bike bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 which was stolen on 02.07.2010 which is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence he filed the present complaint.
4. Opposite party No.1 and 2 came into appearance and filed the written versions. The opposite party No.1 filed the written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant in the complaint and further submitted that on 24.05.2008 a Bajaj Pulsar 150 DTS-I-BSII Motor Cycle was registered as AP03-AF-5105 and the said registration was valid up to 23.05.2023 in the name of Sri.G.S.Sudhakar, S/o. Late G.Swamy Doss. The opposite party no.1 further submits that, on 01.03.2011 they received a letter from New India Assurance Company Limited in which it is reported that the above said bike was stolen on 02.07.2010 and the case was registered in CCS, Tirupati in Crime No. 297/2010 U/s. 379 of IPC and the above case was closed as undetectable and settled the claim to the insured after obtaining letter of Subrogation and Indemnity Bond from the vehicle owner and requested them to record the theft of the vehicle in their office records.
The opposite party No.1 further submits that, accordingly they have entered in their system as the bike bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 was stolen and in remarks column they have entered as “THE VEHICLE IS UNDER THEFT.” The opposite party No.1 further submits that, subsequently the registered owner of the existing motor vehicle bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 had purchased the second vehicle Honda Motor Cycle vide temporary registration Mark AP-03-VBTR-9947 dated: 21.07.2016 and approached for registration for which he has paid life tax of Rs.6,540/- only.And further stated that As per seventh schedule (See fifty proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3) Non- Transport vehicles meant for carrying persons owned by Companies /Institutions /Societies/ Organizations up to a seating capacity of (10) ten all and second or more personalized vehicles up to a seating capacity of (10) ten in all owned by an individual at the time of registration of new vehicle 14% of the cost of the vehicle is liable (a copy of Seventh Schedule is enclosed). Accordingly the complainant was advised to pay difference of tax of Rs.3630/- for registration of the said vehicle and also requested the complainant to file the original RC of the stolen vehicle for cancellation of its registration.
5. The opposite party No.1 further submits that, the complainant filed the present case by stating that, the RC of the stolen vehicle bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 was not cancelled by them. In this connection, as per Section 55 of M.V.Act for cancellation of the registration, the registered owner of the vehicle shall forward the certificate of registration of the vehicle to the concerned Registering Authority. But the complainant has not surrendered the original RC and not made any application for cancellation of RC of the stolen vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. Now, on demand of the additional tax for his 2nd vehicle, the complainant is making false complaint that the RC was not cancelled by them. The opposite party No.1 further submits that, on 20.09.2016 the complainant issued a legal notice by stating that even after receipt of the information about the theft of the motor bike from the opposite party No.2 insurance authority through their letter dt:01.03.2011 they have not cancelled the R.C which is false. But as per Section 55 of M.V.Act the owner of the bike has to make an application for the cancellation of R.C. In that connection, the opposite party No.1 further submits that, as per the intimation by way of letter by opposite party No.2 dt: 01.03.2011 they have noted necessary theft entries in their computer system and in remarks column as “THE VEHICLE IS UNDER THEFT” and further submits that, so far the registered owner not surrendered the original R.C of theft motor bike bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 for cancellation of its registration. So, throwing the blame on the opposite party is not at all justifiable hence there is no deficiency in service on their part and they are not liable to pay any damages to the complainant. The complainant filed this complaint only to harass this opposite party hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. The opposite party No.2 filed written version and admitted that the complainant took the policy from them for the vehicle bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 and the above said vehicle was stolen on 02.07.2010 and the case was registered under Crime No.297/2010 and said case was referred as undetectable on 30.10.2010 accordingly the final report was submitted by the CCS Police, Tirupati to the Hon’ble Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The opposite party No.2 further submitted that the policy bearing No.612700/31/09/01/0000/6238 was in force by the date of theft and the claim was settled on his submission of original key of the vehicle, RC of the vehicle and final police report and thus the claim was settled for an amount of Rs.33,790/- and paid to the complainant. The opposite party No.2 further stated that they have intimated to the opposite party No.1 regarding the payment of insurance coverage amount to the complainant and requested to the opposite party No.1 to record the theft of the vehicle of the complainant bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 and take necessary action by way of letter dt: 01.03.2011 opposite party No.2 is not aware that he purchased second motor vehicle on 21.07.2016. The opposite party No.2 further stated that the complainant made several requests to the opposite party No.1 for the cancellation of R.C and to record the theft of the vehicle and issued legal notice to opposite party No.1 and marking copy to the opposite party No.2 on 20.09.2016 and 09.12.2016. The averment that the opposite party No.1 received said legal notice, but neither complied nor replied legal notice is partly true and partly untrue. Hence the opposite party submitted that the complainant has intimated about theft of the vehicle and submitted original key of the vehicle, RC of the vehicle and final police report of the vehicle to them and they have settled the claim and also they further intimated vide its letter reference 612700/Motor OD Claims/2011dated 01.03.2011 to opposite party No.1 to record the theft of the vehicle in their records and also they have stated that they gave reply notice to the complainant on 05.12.2016 stating that they have already settled the claim and same was informed to the opposite party No.1 and they are not having any authority to cancel the RC of the vehicle. Hence there is no cause of action against them in the present case as they have done their part by intimating the theft of the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 and as such there is no deficiency in service on part of them and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.
7. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex: A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party No.1 one G. Vivekananda Reddy S/o. G.Chenna Reddy, Regional Transport Officer filed his evidence affidavit and on behalf of opposite party No.2, R.Madhusudhana Rao, S/o.R.Lakshmikantham, Deputy Manager of New India Assurance Co.Ltd., filed his evidence on affidavit and Ex:B1was marked on behalf of opposite party no.1. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.
8. Now the point for consideration is:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
9.Point:- The main case of the complainant is, his bike bearing registration No.AP03-AF-5105 was stolen on 02.07.2010, on complaint by him the case was registered by the CCS Police, Tirupati in Crime No.297/2010 on 10.07.2010 the copy of FIR was filed under Ex:A1 and after investigation the case was referred as undetectable on 30.10.2010. Accordingly a final report was submitted by the CCS Police, Tirupati to the Hon’ble IInd Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati under Ex:A2. The vehicle was covered under the insurance of New India Assurance Company Limited vide policy bearing No. 612700/31/09/01/0000/6238 and the claim was settled on his submission of the original key of the vehicle, RC of the vehicle and final police report for Rs.33,790/- to the complainant by the opposite party No.2 the insurance company.
10. The complainant further stated that, the opposite party No.2 intimated to the opposite party No.1 on 01.03.2011 under Ex.A10 to the RTO, Tirupati regarding the payment of the insurance claim amount of Rs.33,790/- to the complainant and requested to record the theft of the vehicle bearing registration No.AP03-AF-5105 in their records and take to take necessary steps. But the opposite party No.1 has not taken any action for the cancellation of the registration of the vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 which was stolen even after receipt of the information by the opposite party No.2.
The counsel for the complainant further stated that, on 21.07.2016 he has purchased HONDA MOTOR CYCLE for Rs.72,632/- and paid tax of Rs.6540/- and also he paid registration fee of Rs.30/- to the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued TR (Temporary Registration) bearing No.AP03-VBTR-9947 to his new bike under Ex:A3 and the complainant further stated that when he requested the opposite party No.1 to issue RC in the name of him, the opposite party No.1 asked to pay additional amount of Rs.3630/- instead of Rs.635/- on the ground that the complainant has already having a motor vehicle in his name bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. The counsel for the complainant further stated that, the opposite party No.1 has not cancelled R.C and deleted the entry of the old vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 in their records. If the opposite party No.1 took the steps to cancel the RC of the bike bearing No.AP03-AF-5105, the complainant need not pay the amount of Rs.3630/- to the RTO for the registration of the new vehicle. Hence because of negligence on part of opposite party No.1, he paid excess amount towards tax which is nothing but deficiency in service. The counsel for the complainant further stated that, the complainant made several requests to cancel the registration of the theft vehicle and finally he caused legal notice to the opposite party No.1 and the copies were served on opposite party No.2 on 20.09.2016 under Ex:A4 and also on 09.12.2016 under Ex:A7 respectively. But even after receipt of the notices, the opposite party No.1 failed to send reply nor cancel the registration of the vehicle which was stolen on 02.07.2010 which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party No.1.
11. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 argued that, immediately after receipt of the information from opposite party no.2 insurance company, they have made necessary entries in their system in respect of motor bike bearing No. AP03-AF-5105 and also in remarks column made entry to the effect “THE VEHICLE IS UNDER THEFT”. And further argued that, the complainant purchased the second vehicle Honda Motor Cycle vide temporary registration No. AP03-VBTR-9974 dt: 21.07.2016 and approached the opposite party No.1 for registration of the said bike and he paid life tax of Rs.6540/- only. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 stated that, As per seventh schedule (See fifty proviso to sub-section (2) of section 3) Non-Transport vehicles meant for carrying persons owned by Companies /Institutions /Societies/ Organizations up to a seating capacity of (10) ten all and second or more personalized vehicles up to a seating capacity of (10) ten in all owned by an individual at the time of registration of new vehicle 14% of the cost of the vehicle is liable (a copy of Seventh Schedule is enclosed). Accordingly they advised the complainant to pay difference of tax of Rs.3630/- for the registration of the second vehicle and also they have requested the complainant to file the original RC of the theft vehicle for cancellation of its registration. But the complainant has filed the present case without submitting the RC to them. In this connection as per Sec.55 of M.V.Act, for cancellation of registration, the registered owner of the vehicle shall forward the certificate of registration of the vehicle to the concerned registering authority. But the registered owner who is the complainant has not surrendered the original RC of the stolen vehicle and not made any application for cancellation of RC till the date of complaint. Now on demand of the additional tax for his second vehicle, he make false complaint that the RC was not cancelled by them and so far they have not received any application for the cancellation of the vehicle by the registered owner except the legal notices under Ex:A4 dt: 20.09.2016 and under Ex:A7 dt: 09.12.2016. Hence without making any representation and without surrendering the RC, the complainant has unnecessarily thrown blame on them and there is no deficiency in service on part of them, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there are latches on part of the complainant only.
12. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that, after settlement of the claim of the complainant, the opposite party No.2 issued letter under Ex:A7 dt: 01.03.2011 to the opposite party No.1 to record the theft of the vehicle of the complainant bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 and take necessary action. The counsel for the opposite party No.2 stated that they gave reply to the notice of the complainant on 05.12.2016 under Ex:A11 stating that they have already settled the claim and did their duty by intimating the same to the RTO as they are not having any authority to cancel the registration of the vehicle. Hence the complaint is liable to dismissed against them as they have already settled the claim of the complainant and also intimated the same to the opposite party No.1 to enter the details of the theft of the vehicle of the complainant.
13. After perusing the records filed by both the complainant and opposite party No.1&2 there is no dispute regarding the theft of the vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. The main contention of the complainant is, he requested the RTO to register his new motor bike and issue RC in his name, but the opposite party No.1 asked additional amount of Rs.3630/- instead of Rs.635/ as it is the second vehicle for him other than the motor vehicle in his name bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. But the complainant stated that the said vehicle was stolen and the case was registered and the said case was closed as un detectable and the final report was filed by the police of CCS, Tirupati in 2nd Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati and he has further stated that by submitting the original RC and original key, the opposite party No.2 had settled the claim and intimated the fact of theft of the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 under Ex:A7 dt: 01.03.2011 but after receiving the above said letter from opposite party No.2, the opposite party No.1 failed to cancel the RC of the complainant. But the opposite party No.1 clearly stated that after receiving the above said letter they made necessary changes in their system and in their remarks column there is entry to the effect that “THE VEHICLE IS UNDER THEFT”. But by the date of filing of the present complaint, the complainant never approached them and never made any representation or application for the cancellation of the RC of the stolen vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105 by surrendering the original RC to them except the legal notices under Ex:A4 & Ex:A7. Section 55 of M.V.Act clearly envisages that for the cancellation of the registration of the vehicle, the owner shall make an application for cancellation to the concerned registering authority. But in the present case the registered owner who is the complainant has not surrendered original RC and not made any application for the cancellation of the theft of motor vehicle and hence there is no deficiency in service on part of opposite party as there are latches on part of the complainant itself. But except mere allegation that the complainant made several requests to the opposite party No.1 to cancel the registration he has not filed any documentary proof to show that he made an application to the opposite party No.1 to cancel the registration of stolen vehicle bearing No.AP03-AF-5105. So it is to be construed that the opposite party No.1 is having information about the theft of the bike Reg.No.AP03-AF-5105 of the complainant and the case was closed as undetected and the necessary entries was also made in their records. Except the oral allegation, the complainant has not filed any documentary proof to show that he made an application for the cancellation of the Registration Certificate under Sec. 55 of M.V.ACT. The opposite party No.2 clearly admitted that the complainant handed over the original RC to them at the time of settlement of the theft claim.
Hence it clearly shows that the original RC was in the custody of the opposite party No.2. Hence the opposite party No.2 is directed to hand over the original R.C to the complainant within three weeks from the date of the copy of this order to enable the complainant to make an application to the opposite party No.1 under Rule 55 of M.V.Act to cancel the R.C of the theft vehicle and directed the opposite party No.1 to take appropriate action by receiving the original RC from the complainant
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.2 to hand over the original RC of the bike bearing registration No.AP03-AF-5105 to the complainant which was submitted by him at the time of settlement of claim for policy bearing No. 612700/31/09/01/0000/6238 to enable him to apply for the cancellation of RC of the vehicle to the opposite party No.1 and on receiving the application, the opposite party No.1 is directed to take appropriate action as per rules for the cancellation of the RC. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to comply with the order within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No Costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 21st day of June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member President (FAC)
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.
PW-1: G.S.Sudhakar (Chief Affidavit filed).
Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.
RW-1: G. Vivekananda Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).
RW-2: R. Madhusudhana Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s
Exhibits (Ex.A) | Description of Documents |
Attested photo copy of the F.I.R in Crime No.297/2010 of C.C.S. Tirupati. Dt: 10.07.2010. | |
Attested photo copy of the Final Report issued by the Inspector of Police C.C.S. Tirupathi in Crime No. 297/2010 filed by the Complainant. | |
True copy of Temporary Certificate of Registration issued by the A.P. Transport Department infavour of the Complainant. Dt: 23.07.2016. | |
Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the O.P.No.1 and copy to the O.P.No.2 filed by the Complainant. Dt: 20.09.2016. | |
Postal Acknowledgement Card (in Original) of the O.P.No.1 filed by the Complainant. Dt: 22.09.2016 | |
Postal Acknowledgement Card (in Original) of the O.P.No.2 filed by the Complainant. Dt: 22.09.2016. | |
Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the O.P.No.1 and copy to the O.P.No.2 filed by the Complainant. Dis.No.56/2016, Dt: 09.12.2016. | |
Postal Acknowledgement Card (in Original) of the O.P.No.1 filed by the Complainant. Dt: 13.12.2016. | |
Postal Acknowledgement Card (in Original) of the O.P.No.2 filed by the Complainant. | |
Photo copy of Letter regarding “Theft of vehicle No.AP-03-AF-5105 on 02/07/2010 covered under Policy No.612700/31/09/01/00006238 of Mr. G.S. Sudhakar” by O.P.No.2 to the Complainant. Dt: 01.03.2011. | |
Original copy of Letter regarding “Theft of your vehicle No.AP-03-AF-5105 on 02/07/2010 and our Policy No.612700/31/09/01/00006238” issued by the O.P.No.2 to the Complainant. Dt: 05.12.2016. |
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s
Exhibits (Ex.B) | Description of Documents |
Attested copy of Gazette Notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. Dt: 02.02.2010. |
Sd/-
President (FAC)
// TRUE COPY //
// BY ORDER //
Head Clerk/Sheristadar,
Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.
Copies to: 1) The Complainant,
2) The Opposite parties.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
Bhanu Pratap
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)
Bhanu Pratap
Featured RecomendedHighly recommended!
Experties
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Phone Number
7982270319
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.