Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

503/2008

S.A.Napina - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Transport Officer & others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan

06 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 05.12.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

         DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

CC. NO.503 /2008

TUESDAY THE 6^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

Mrs. S.A.Napina,

No.3-B, East Coast Apartments,

13^th Avenue,

Harrington Road,

Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.                                  .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1. The Regional Transport Officer,

Chennai (Central ),

MTC Building, Ayanavaram,

Chennai 600 023.

 

2. The Transport Commissioner,

Transport Department,

Ezhilagam, Chennai 600 005.

 

3. The Grievance Department,

Regional Transport Office,

Chennai (Central),

MTC Building, Ayanavaram,

Chennai 600 023. ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant             :  M/s. K.Ganesan  

Counsel for opposite parties     :  M/s. Pon Ram Rajaa   

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to cancel the hypothecation endorsement in the registration certificate and hand over the original R.C book and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint. 

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that she purchased a Maruthi 800 Model 1995 by availing vehicle loan from her employer  after due hypothecation.  The original R.C. book of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 01 J4567   had the endorsement of hypothecation thereon.   In the Year 2004 when the complainant  retired voluntarily the complainant had paid the entire dues towards the vehicle loan to the employer and he submitted the original R.c. book and connected papers to the opposite parties for due cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement and paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards cancellation charges. The complainant further state that the opposite party without making the cancellation  endorsement in the registration certificate  for the vehicle TN 01 J4567  issued fresh R.C  Book with a new registration No. TN 01 AE 2929 with endorsement “hypothecation agreement “ cancellation w.e.f. 10.2.2004.   The complainant further state that the delay in cancellation the hypothecation and issue fresh registration No.TN 01 AE 2929   for the old vehicle of the year 1995 caused great mental agony.    As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. 

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that on 20.10.1995 registration No. TN 01 J 4567 was allotted to  motor car TATA ESTATE belongs to Mr. Rafisons Pvt. Ltd.   Thereafter the same registration No.TN 01 J 4567 was allotted to the complainant’s car Maruthi 800 of the year 1995  on 11.2.1995 the said mistake  came to the knowledge of the opposite party when the complainant submitted application for cancellation of hypothecation with original R.c. and due  receipt.   Thereafter the opposite parties arise new registration No.TN01 AE 2929.   The opposite parties further states that the allotment of one registration number for two vehicles has resulted  some delay.  The opposite parties also state that  the complainant herself has admitted that her car had been assigned a new Registration number TN 01 AE 2929 and Hypothecation agreement  made in the registration certificate pertaining to the complainant was also cancelled.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to cancel the hypothecation endorsement  in the registration certificate bearing No.TN 01 J4567 and to hand over the original R.c. book as prayed ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed ?

5. POINTS 1 & 2: -

        Heard the complainant counsel.  Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The opposite party has not filed proof affidavit and written arguments in order to prove the contentions in written version.   The opposite party neither filed written arguments nor advanced any oral argument also.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that  she purchased a Maruthi 800 Model 1995 car by availing vehicle loan from her employer  after due hypothecation.  The original R.C. book of the vehicle bearing registration No.TN 01 J4567   had the endorsement of hypothecation also is admitted.   In the Year 2004 when the complainant  retired voluntarily the complainant had paid entire due towards the vehicle loan to the employer and  submitted the original R.c. book and connected papers to the opposite parties for due cancellation of the hypothecation endorsement and paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards cancellation charges as per Ex.A2.  The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the opposite party without cancellation the endorsement in the registration certificate  for the vehicle TN 01 J4567  issued fresh R.C with a new registration No. TN 01 AE 2929 with endorsement “hypothecation agreement “cancellation w.e.f. 10.2.2004 as per Ex.A5.   on 4.3.2009 during the pendency of the case.  The opposite parties has not whispered anything about the reason for such assignment of new registration certificate with new registration No. TN 01 AE 2929 for the vehicle Maruthi 800 1995 model.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that the delay in cancellation the hypothecation and issue of fresh registration No.TN 01 AE 2929   for the old vehicle of the year 1995 caused great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony. Since the assignment of new vehicle No.TN 01 AE 2929  caused great inconvenience when selling the vehicle.

6.     The contentions raised by the opposite parties  in his written version that  on 20.10.1995 registration No. TN 01 J 4567 was allotted to the motor car TATA ESTATE belongs to Mr. Rafisons Pvt. Ltd.  Thereafter  inadvertently the same registration No.TN 01 J 4567 was allotted to the complainant’s car Maruthi 800 of the year 1995.  On 11.2.1995 the said mistake was came to the knowledge of the opposite party when the complainant submitted application for cancellation of hypothecation as per Ex.A2.   with original R.c. and due  receipt.   Thereafter the opposite parties arise new registration No. TN01 AE 2929 with proper endorsement i.e. “hypothecation agreement cancellation new registration certificate was handed over to the complainant”.  But on a careful perusal of the records it is apparently clear that the complainant’s Marthi 800 car was purchased on 11.12.1995 and hypothecation was duly registered on 11.1.1996 and thereafter immediately after payment of all hypothecation amount when approached the opposite parties for due cancellation as per Ex.A2 dated 12.7.2005.  The opposite parties came to understand that they have committed gross mistake of allotting of one registration No. for two vehicles.  It is also clear from the records that in order to rectify such  mistake the opposite parties  i.e. from 12.7.2005 to 5.3.2009 may cause great mental agony.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 6^th day of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 11.1.1996 - Copy of R.C book for vehicle.

Ex.A2- 12.7.2005 - Copy of Challan of RTO

Ex.A3- 14.6.2008 - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A4- 8.8.2008  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A5-             - Copy of Form of certificate of registration inTN01AE2929

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  ..Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                            MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.