By Jayasree Kallat, Member.
The petition was filed on 04.05.2011.The complainant had purchased a Prado land cruiser bearing Registration No.DL ICG560 from its owner Asha Devi Garg Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi. The vehicle was brought to Calicut and used by the complainant in Kerala. The complainant desired to transfer the registration to Kerala at Kozhikode where he resides. So the complainant applied to the opposite party officials along with the original smart card registration certificate of the vehicle for due verification and processing. Meanwhile the complainant sold the vehicle to a party in Bangalore and hence requested the opposite party to return to him the original smart card registration certificate of the vehicle to give it to transferring. Complainant had remitted prescribed fee for the purpose. Even after several reminders by the complainant the opposite party has not returned the original smart card registration certificate to the complainant. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party the complainant had suffered financially and mentally. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief along with compensation.
Opposite party filed version denying the allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. It is true that the vehicle Toyota Prado bearing registration No.DL 0I/CG560 was registered in the name of Smt.Asha Devi Garg, Laxmi Nagar New Delhi. The registering authority had issued No objection certificate to the vehicle on 23.07.2008 in favour of the purchaser. As per the Section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 when a Motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State for a period exceeding 12 months the owner of the vehicle shall apply to the Registering Authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is for assignment of a new registration mark shall present the certificate of registration to that registering authority. The complainant had applied for registration mark in respect of the vehicle on 22.02.2010 after remitting Rs.600/- the prescribed fees. As per section 47 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act the opposite party issued a letter to the original registering authority for ascertaining the genuineness of the No Objection Certificate on 12.05.2010. Another letter was issued to State Crime Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, for ascertaining whether the vehicle is involved in Crime or stolen. Opposite party did not receive any reply. Hence opposite party had obtained an affidavit from the complainant attested by Notary in which it is stated that no departmental or any other action is pending against the vehicle and vehicle is not involved in any theft. Considering the affidavit opposite party reassigned the registration mark of the vehicle as KL.11/AJ 1772 on 15.06.2011. The Regional Transport Officer is the statutory Authority and the act done by the authority is statutory function. There was no laxity or negligence on the part of the opposite party. An acknowledgment was issued to the complainant where by he could ply the vehicle any where in the state. As there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
No oral or documentary evidence on the side of the complainant and opposite party.
The complaint is filed for getting the original registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from Asha devi Garg, New Delhi to be transferred in the name of the complainant to Kerala Registration. Complainant had applied for the transfer and submitted the original smart card registration certificate as well. Opposite party had issued to the complainant a temporary receipt for the surrender of the registration certificate of the vehicle. Complainant’s case is that he had sent several reminders to the opposite party to get back the original smart card registration certificate as he had sold the vehicle to a party in Bangalore. According to the complainant there was delay in getting back the original smart card registration certificate and due to this delay he had to suffer heavy monitory loss. The definite contention of the opposite party is that as per the section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 when a Motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another state for a period exceeding 12 months the owner of the vehicle have to apply to the registering authority for assignment of a new registration mark. This complainant had applied for transferring the vehicle on 22.02.2010 after remitting Rs.600/-. The opposite party had proceeded according to the statutory procedure. Opposite party had to ascertain the genuineness of the NOC and ascertain whether the vehicle was involved in any crime or a stolen vehicle. This procedure had to be completed before assigning the registration mark of the vehicle to the present owner. When there was delay in getting information opposite party had obtained an affidavit from the complainant attested by District Notary in which it was made clear that no departmental or any other action is pending against this particular vehicle and also it is not involved in any theft. Considering the affidavit opposite party had reassigned the registration mark of the vehicle as KL.11/AJ.on 15.06.2011. In such a circumstance the forum is of the opinion that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 8th day of December 2011.
Date of filing:04.05.2011.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
By Jayasree Kallat, Member.
The petition was filed on 04.05.2011.The complainant had purchased a Prado land cruiser bearing Registration No.DL ICG560 from its owner Asha Devi Garg Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi. The vehicle was brought to Calicut and used by the complainant in Kerala. The complainant desired to transfer the registration to Kerala at Kozhikode where he resides. So the complainant applied to the opposite party officials along with the original smart card registration certificate of the vehicle for due verification and processing. Meanwhile the complainant sold the vehicle to a party in Bangalore and hence requested the opposite party to return to him the original smart card registration certificate of the vehicle to give it to transferring. Complainant had remitted prescribed fee for the purpose. Even after several reminders by the complainant the opposite party has not returned the original smart card registration certificate to the complainant. Due to the negligent act of the opposite party the complainant had suffered financially and mentally. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief along with compensation.
Opposite party filed version denying the allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. It is true that the vehicle Toyota Prado bearing registration No.DL 0I/CG560 was registered in the name of Smt.Asha Devi Garg, Laxmi Nagar New Delhi. The registering authority had issued No objection certificate to the vehicle on 23.07.2008 in favour of the purchaser. As per the Section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 when a Motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another State for a period exceeding 12 months the owner of the vehicle shall apply to the Registering Authority, within whose jurisdiction the vehicle then is for assignment of a new registration mark shall present the certificate of registration to that registering authority. The complainant had applied for registration mark in respect of the vehicle on 22.02.2010 after remitting Rs.600/- the prescribed fees. As per section 47 (2) of Motor Vehicle Act the opposite party issued a letter to the original registering authority for ascertaining the genuineness of the No Objection Certificate on 12.05.2010. Another letter was issued to State Crime Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, for ascertaining whether the vehicle is involved in Crime or stolen. Opposite party did not receive any reply. Hence opposite party had obtained an affidavit from the complainant attested by Notary in which it is stated that no departmental or any other action is pending against the vehicle and vehicle is not involved in any theft. Considering the affidavit opposite party reassigned the registration mark of the vehicle as KL.11/AJ 1772 on 15.06.2011. The Regional Transport Officer is the statutory Authority and the act done by the authority is statutory function. There was no laxity or negligence on the part of the opposite party. An acknowledgment was issued to the complainant where by he could ply the vehicle any where in the state. As there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
No oral or documentary evidence on the side of the complainant and opposite party.
The complaint is filed for getting the original registration certificate of the vehicle purchased by the complainant from Asha devi Garg, New Delhi to be transferred in the name of the complainant to Kerala Registration. Complainant had applied for the transfer and submitted the original smart card registration certificate as well. Opposite party had issued to the complainant a temporary receipt for the surrender of the registration certificate of the vehicle. Complainant’s case is that he had sent several reminders to the opposite party to get back the original smart card registration certificate as he had sold the vehicle to a party in Bangalore. According to the complainant there was delay in getting back the original smart card registration certificate and due to this delay he had to suffer heavy monitory loss. The definite contention of the opposite party is that as per the section 47 of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 when a Motor vehicle registered in one State has been kept in another state for a period exceeding 12 months the owner of the vehicle have to apply to the registering authority for assignment of a new registration mark. This complainant had applied for transferring the vehicle on 22.02.2010 after remitting Rs.600/-. The opposite party had proceeded according to the statutory procedure. Opposite party had to ascertain the genuineness of the NOC and ascertain whether the vehicle was involved in any crime or a stolen vehicle. This procedure had to be completed before assigning the registration mark of the vehicle to the present owner. When there was delay in getting information opposite party had obtained an affidavit from the complainant attested by District Notary in which it was made clear that no departmental or any other action is pending against this particular vehicle and also it is not involved in any theft. Considering the affidavit opposite party had reassigned the registration mark of the vehicle as KL.11/AJ.on 15.06.2011. In such a circumstance the forum is of the opinion that there was no delay or negligence on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.
In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court this the 8th day of December 2011.
Date of filing:04.05.2011.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
