IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 220/20 (filed on 02-12-2020)
Petitioner : George Thomas,
Paruvamoottil House,
Muvattupuzha P.O.
Near Nirmala Public School,
Ernakulam – 686661.
(Adv. K.S. Vindokumar)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) The Regional Transport Officer,
Pathanamthitta,
(2) Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd.
4th Floor, Payyil,
Kohinoor Arcade,
Sankranthi Junction,
Kottayam - 686028
(Adv. Dr. Rejimon V.T.)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant has purchased a Maruti ritz car bearing registration no. KL 03-Y-5999 in the auction sale conducted by the 2nd opposite party on26.12.2017 on the assurance by them that there was no encumbrance and all the documents were clear. On the basis of the assurance the complainant purchased the said car for Rs.3.35 Lakhs. Though the 2nd opposite party assured the complainant that they would issue an NOC at the time of execution of the bond and the ownership also would be changed by them but they issued the NOC only after 30 days from the date of purchase and no steps were taken to change the ownership even after 3 years.
The application for transferring the ownership of the car was submitted before the 1st opposite party on 15/03.2018 and the fees for the same was paid on the same day itself. But no action was taken by the 1st op. After repeated requests, the complainant sent a detailed representation to the 1st opposite party but no action was taken by the 1st opposite party and the complainant approached Honourable High Court in WPC 39385/2018 to issue direction to the 1st opposite party to take necessary action to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and to issue fresh R.C in the name of the complainant. From the order of the Honourable High court, the complainant understood that the original owner of the car Mr. John K George had obtained an exparte injunction against the 2nd opposite party restraining it from transferring the registration certificate of the car. The 2nd opposite party suppressed the fact from the complainant for undue gain and sold the vehicle to the complainant. Hence the complaint is filed for getting Rs.3,35,000/- back from the opposite parties and compensation.
The opposite parties appeared before the commission and filed version upon receipt of the notice.
The 1st opposite party’s contentions are that the vehicle in question was registered with 1st opposite party office on 14.11.14 and hypothecated to 2nd opposite party herein.
On 4.01.18 the registered owner of the vehicle submitted a request before OP1 that since the above mentioned vehicle had been forcefully seized from him by the financier without his consent, the ownership of the vehicle should not be changed without his consent In the meantime the registered owner of the vehicle had filed WP(C) No8209/2018 before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala for considering his representation dated 4.1.2018.The Hon’ble High Court directed the Regional transport Officer to consider the same with due notice to the petitioner and financier before the transfer is endorsed in the registration certificate. On 15.03.2018 the financier has applied for the termination of hypothecation and for fresh registration certificate in respect of the vehicle in question. So the 1st opposite party has called the registered owner and the financier when the registered owner raised objection to the transfer and the financier said that the registered owner had surrendered the vehicle to them. The 1st opposite party received a letter from the petitioner on 3.12.18 alleging that he had submitted application for transfer of ownership of the vehicle but the office of the 1st opposite party did receive the application from the financier for hypothecation termination and fresh RC only that too without the current records such as RC book, insurance and pollution certificate.
On enquiry it was revealed that the case before the Munsiff Court, pathanamthitta, is still pending. Moreover the final judgement in WPC no 39385/2018 has also not received. So the 1st opposite party is unable to do something in the matter pending before the courts. Hence there is no deficiency on the part of the 1st opposite party.
The 2nd opposite party filed version that it is not true that the opposite party assured the complainant that there was no encumbrance on the vehicle and all the documents were clear at the time of auction. The complainant purchased the vehicle after being convinced about the details of the vehicle from the advertisement given by the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had already intimated the complainant that there was no RC book with them. The 2nd opposite party had not agreed to change the Ownership or had not made any assurances in this regard. The 2nd opposite party is not bound to change the Ownership of the vehicle. The complainant had purchased the said vehicle from the customer of the 2nd opposite party as per law as per the order of the arbitrator. The 2nd opposite party is not liable for the complaint filed by the customer. The complaint is not maintainable as the customer of the 2nd opposite party is not a party in this. There is no need to return either the vehicle or the money. As there is a case pending between the parties in this complaint, before the civil court and the High court, this complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this 2nd opposite party and the 2nd opposite party is not liable to give any compensation to the complainant.
The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 to A7. Though sufficient time was granted, the opposite parties did not turn up either to adduce evidence or to argue the matter.
From a thorough reading of the complaint, versions as well as the evidence on record, we consider the following points to be answered:
- Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency of
service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so what are the reliefs?
Point No.1
1. The allegations of the complainant is that he had purchased a Maruthi Ritz car bearing reg.no Kl-03-Y-5999in the auction sale conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Thereafter though he had informed both the Ops to get the ownership changed, no steps were taken by the Ops. Moreover, when he filed a writ petition before the Honorable High court in this regard, he came to know that there was a civil suit pending before the Munsiffs Court against the 2nd opposite party filed by the previous owner and an injunction also was there prohibiting the opposite parties from changing the RC owner. The act of the opposite parties to sell the vehicle hiding the case and not getting the name changed is deficiency in their service.
2. The complainant has purchased the vehicle in the auction conducted by the 2nd opposite party by executing a bond which is produced as Exhibit A1. From the affidavit of the complainant and also from the version of the 1st opposite party, it is understood that the 2nd opposite party had applied for the transfer of RC on 15-03-2018. The sale by auction was conducted on 26-12-17. From the version of the 1st opposite party and from the documents submitted by the complainant it is understood that the original owner of the vehicle had filed the writ petition before the Honourbale High court and the civil suit before the Munsiffs court subsequent to the auction only.
3. As the injunction order came after the auction sale only, it cannot be held that the opposite parties had defrauded the complainant by hiding the existence of an injunction order.
4. But from the documents it is seen that the 2nd opposite party applied for the change of RC only on 15-03-2018. Only after 3 months and 5 days after the auction sale. The 2nd opposite party, being the hypothecating agency, was liable for effecting the name change in the RC book to the complainant. But it is seen that the 2nd opposite party had made inordinate delay in taking the steps for the ownership change. Due to this undue delay, all the subsequent litigations happened causing severe mental agony and hardships to the complainant. The complainant though paid the entire amount has been put to such a situation that he could not get the full enjoyment and the ownership of the vehicle. The complainant was put to undue hardships as he could not do the necessary legal requirement for the lawful usage of the vehicle on the road.
Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the 2nd opposite party is liable to receive the vehicle when surrendered by the complainant by repaying the full amount received to meet the ends of justice. We find this an act of deficiency on the part of the opposite party no 2.
Hence we allow the complaint in part vide the following order:
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,35,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from 26-12-2019 till realization. The complainant shall surrender the vehicle on receipt of payment of the award amount.
- The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardships.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.If not complied as directed, the compensation amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of bond issued to the 2nd opposite party
A2 – Copy of receipt No.3/14264/18
A3 – Copy of receipt No.3/14266/18
A4- Copy of letter dtd.12-11-18 by complainant to 1st opposite party
A5 – Copy of Order in WP(C) No.39385/2018 (W)dtd.24-01-2019 from High
Court of Kerala
A6 - Copy of Order in WP(C) No.39385/2018 (W) dtd.30-01-2019 from High
Court of Kerala
A7 – Power of Attorney
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
