Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/278

Kuljit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Transport Officer - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal K.Dua

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 278 dated 12.07.2022.                                                        Date of decision: 17.11.2022.

     

Kuljit Singh aged 47 years S/o. S. Raghbir Singh, R/o. Ward No.01, Rahaun, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana, 141401 (Mob. 98889-31767)                                                                                                                         ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

The Regional Transport Officer/Registration Authority Motor Vehicle, Ludhiana, Punjab.                                                                                                                                                                                     …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Jeep make Mahindra & Mahindra from Delhi vide its old registration No.DL-3CAS-0646 and after obtaining NOC from the competent authority, the complainant applied for new registration number with the office of the opposite party and also completed all the necessary formalities for issuance of registration certificate. Accordingly, a registration certificate bearing No.PB-10-CJ-2020 was issued to the complainant on 25.08.2011 having validity up to 17.12.2020. After 17.12.2020, the complainant applied for renewal/fitness certificate with the office of the opposite party but the officials of opposite party insisted on the requirement of fresh insurance policy and accordingly, the complainant got it insured. As per the complainant, to his dismay, the officials of the opposite party disclosed that they had issued same registration No.PB-10-CJ-2020 on 11.09.2012 to one Rajesh Bansal for his vehicle make Sunny Nissan. The complainant filed a RTI application for obtaining the said information but did not get the same. The request of the complainant to renew the registration of the vehicle did not find favour and rather the officials of the opposite party communicated that they have mistakenly issued the identical registration number to Rajesh Bansal and they will get their mistake rectify by changing the registration number of either of the vehicle. It was further stated by the complainant that Rajesh Bansal had obtained fitness/registration certificate of his vehicle bearing same number by way of online registration and which has also been expired on 17.12.2020. The complainant further stated that his repeated visits to the office of registration authority failed to give desired results and he has been deprived the usage of the vehicle due to its non-renewal of registration certificate. He has further stated that due to act and conduct of the opposite party, he has underwent mental agony and torture. Hence the complaint. It has further been prayed that the opposite party be directed to renew  fitness/registration certificate of the vehicle No.PB-10-CJ-2020 and the complainant has also claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental as well as physical harassment. 

2.                Notice was issued to the opposite party but the opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.09.2022.

3.                          In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered Ex. C1 as copy of registration certificate, Ex. C2 as old registration certificate of the vehicle, Ex. C3 as copy of registration certificate of Maruti car of the complainant, Ex. C4 as copy of registration certificate in the name of Rajesh Bansal, Ex. C5 as copy of insurance policy, Ex. C6 as copy of no objection certificate, Ex. C7 as copy of Form R.M.I. and Ex. C8 as copy of adhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.

4.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5.                The dispute between the complainant and the opposite party falls within the definition of consumer dispute. The complainant has based his claim on the basis of documents issued by the office of opposite party except Ex. C5 insurance policy and as such, they are per-see admissible and their genuineness cannot be disputed. Perusal of the documents also reveal that it is the complainant whose vehicle was firstly registered on 25.08.2011 and registration No.PB-10-CJ-2020 was issued to him. One Rajesh Bansal was issued the identical registration number on 11.09.2012 subsequently through online registration. Issuance of same number to different persons clearly shows that the officials of the opposite party were negligent and casual in their approach while issuing such an important document. The acts of the official of the opposite party has certainly deprived the complainant to make full usage of his vehicle for which he had invested substantial amount. Consumer Protection (General) Rules 2020 framed under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 provides: Public utility services are to be established within the meaning of Section 2(19) of the Consumer Protection Act. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service qua the complainant.

6.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party to consider the renewal of fitness/registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.PB-10-CJ-2020 within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Kuljit Singh Vs Regional Transport Officer                                       CC/22/278

Present:       Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate for complainant.

                   OP exparte.

 

                   Learned counsel for the complainant closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with direction to the opposite party to consider the renewal of fitness/registration certificate of the vehicle of the complainant bearing registration No.PB-10-CJ-2020 within 20 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (Sanjeev Batra)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:17.11.2022.

Gobind Ram.