Subrata Khanra,

son of Sri Swapan Khanra, residing at village – Deulti Paschim, P.O. Deulti, P.S. Bagnan, District – Howrah.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Regional Transport Officer,  

            Howrah, P.O. Howrah, P.S. Howrah, District – Howrah, PIN – 711101.

2.         The Secretary,  Regional Transport Authority,

            Howrah, P.O. Howrah, P.S. Howrah,  District – Howrah, PIN – 711 101.

3.         Bimal Naskar,

s/o.  G. Naskar, residing at Raghudebbati, Sankrail, District – Howrah, PIN – 711313.------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The complainant, Subrata Khanra by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. nos. 1 & 2  to issue the transfer certificate for the vehicle in question and upon O.P. no. 3 to put his signature in the required form nos. 29 & 30 for effecting such transfer, to pay compensation and litigation costs for causing financial loss and mental agony to the complainant along with other order or orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant purchased one second hand auto

rickshaw being registration no. WB-11/0036 having permit no. P.Co.-PA 917 route from O.P. no. 3 on 10-12-2009. Thereafter, he approached O.P. nos. 1 & 2 to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle in his name. On advice of O.P. nos. 1 & 2, he also published the said   information regarding such transfer in a Bengali Newspaper on 20-12-2009 vide Annexure – P1, xerox copy of newspaper. And complainant submitted all original receipts, original blue book, permit and tax receipt to O.P. nos. 1 & 2  through a letter dated 24-12-2009 being docket no. 9147 vide Annexure P2. But  no such transfer was effected for a long time, when complainant went to enquire about the reason for such non-transfer he was told that all original documents and file had been misplaced and could not be traced out. After that complainant went on writing several letters to O.P. nos. 1 & 2 on different dates such as on 19-08-2010, 28-06-2011, 21-03-2012 & 11-07-2012 vide annexure xerox copies of letters. But even if it is a fact that he purchased the said vehicle almost five years back, he could not succeed to transfer the vehicle in his name and he could not ply the same that caused a tremendous financial loss to the complainant. Even complainant filed a Writ Petition before Hon’ble High  Court, Calcutta being W.P. No. 20290(W) of 2012 and order dated 25-02-2013 passed by Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, has been annexed. And as per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, complainant filed this instant petition before this  Forum with the aforesaid prayers.   

3.                  Notices were served. Only o.p. nos. 1 & 2  appeared and filed written version.

But O.P. no. 3 never appeared nor filed any written version. Accordingly, the case  was heard ex parte against O.P. no. 3.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.p. nos. 1 & 2  in

their written version vide paras 4, 5 & 6 have categorically submitted  that as the original owner of the said vehicle is still Bimal Nasker, here O.P. no. 3, who has not put his signature in the form nos. 29 & 30 that are required for effecting the transfer of ownership of the said vehicle. And vide para nos. 7, 8 ,9, 10 of the written version of the O.P. nos. 1 & 2, it is also clear that both the complainant and O.P. no. 3 were asked to appear before the concerned authority for several times for effecting such transfer. But even on 03-10-2012 and 12-02-2013, none of them appeared before the concerned authority. And only on 23-02-2013, complainant appeared but O.P. no. 3 did not turn up.  And  again on 11-03-2013, both were asked to appear. But due to continuous absence on the  part of the O.P. no. 3, such transfer of ownership could not be effected. But complainant in his BNA stated that O.P. no. 3 put his signature in all required forms being 29 & 30 issued by O.P. nos. 1 & 2 but O.P. nos. 1 & 2 have misplaced all original papers. But no xerox copy of form nos. 29 & 30 duly signed by O.P.  no.  3, has been submitted by the complainant in support of his such claim. And O.P. no. 3 also remained absent all along without filing written version, controverting and challenging the contentions of the complaint. O.P. no. 3, Bimal Naskar, received the notice of this Forum on 23-04-2013. Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta, has also observed that in the absence of a  prescribed form being filed, it is not possible to give any relief to the petitioner, and “it is the case of the petitioner that the original transferor  is not signing the form” in its order dated 25-02-2013 in W .P. No. 20270 (W) of 2012. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in providing service by O.P. nos. 1 & 2 to the complainant.  And it is only O.P. no. 3 who has not discharged his part of duty towards the complainant for which complainant had to suffer a lot since 2009 . Accordingly, we find O.P. no. 3 is negligent and deficient in providing service to the complainant. 

      Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  120 of 2013 ( HDF 120 of 2013 )  be  dismissed on contest against O.P. nos. 1 & 2 without cost and is allowed  ex parte against O.P. no. 3  with  costs.

      That the  O.P. no. 3 is  directed to put his signature in the Form nos. 29 & 30 issued by the Motor Vehicle Department, W.B. within one month from this order and to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.     

      That the o.p nos. 1 & 2  are also  directed to transfer the ownership of the said vehicle within fifteen days after receipt of all required forms duly signed by O.P. no. 3  and on compliance of other formalities by the complainant.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.            

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.