SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

Gist of the complaint case is that his two wheeler was previously registered by the Registering Authority of Paschim Medinipur on 02.08.2002. The said two wheeler had been transferred by its owner to the complainant and it was registered in Purba Medinipur on 28.04.2005 and its validity was till 28.07.2017. on 04.07.2017 the complainant applied before the OP for re-issue of the registration certificate of said vehicle and submitted all the necessary documents before the authority concerned. But the complainant did not get the certificate in spite of repeated quarry from the Department of the OP and ultimately the OP disclosed that the file of the complainant was missing.  The complainant also sent a letter received by the authority concerned on 05.12.2017 for fitness  and re-issue of the registration certificate of the vehicle WB 34-H/9281. But finally the OP did not issue the certificate on the vague plea that as the byke had been earlier registered before the MV Department, Paschim Medinipur,  the complainant had no locus- standi to apply before this OP.

The OP Registering Authority of Motor Vehicles, Purba Medinipur contested the case by filing written version.

The specific case of this OP is that the vehicle in question ie WB 34H/9281 originally was registered with Registering Authority Paschim Medinipur. At present all the jobs relating to Motor vehicles are only done through VAHAN 4 system (soft wire ) at national lavel throughout the country.,  This system does not take the vehicle which had been earlier registered by any other Registering Authority under VAHAN 4 system.  On checking of said system it came to the knowledge of the OP that the said vehicle was registered under the Paschim Medinipur MV Authority in the name of Ashoke Layland Finance Ltd, instead of the name of the complainant.  As such this Op has no authority to do any job relating to that vehicle under MV Act 1988.

The complainant is now residing under the jurisdiction of Contai Registering Authority. So      the complainant should apply before that authority for doing the needful.

             On the basis of the above pleadings of the parties, the  points to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.

Decision with reasons

            Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.

            We have carefully perused the complaint, the written version, affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant and the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the parties.  Heard the submission of both the parties in full.  Also perused the copy of the application for renewal  of registration of the Motor Vehicles, other than Transport Vehicle Under Rule 52(1) of the MV Act, and Form II. Considered.

            From these documents it appears  that the complainant filed an application before the Motor Vehicles Department, Tamluk Purba Medinipur and from  the document dated 05.03.2004 under Rule 48 Form 23 it appears that  it is a certificate of registration issued by the M V Department, Paschim Medinipur to the complainant for the Vehicle No.WB 34H/9281. It also appears that the office of the District Magistrate, Midnapur MV Department received an amount of Rs. 18,800/- for life time tax on 10.12.2003 and granted receipt  to the complainant.

The OP took a plea  in the written version that at present At present all the jobs relating to Motor vehicles are only done through VAHAN 4 system (soft wire ) at national lavel throughout the country.,  This system does not take the vehicle which had been earlier registered by any other Registering Authority under VAHAN 4 system.  On checking of said system it came to the knowledge of the OP that the said vehicle was registered under the Paschim Medinipur MV Authority in the name of Ashoke Layland Finance Ltd, instead of the name of the complainant.  As such this Op has no authority to do any job relating to that vehicle under MV Act 1988. The complainant is now residing under the jurisdiction of Contai Registering Authority. So the complainant should apply before that authority for doing the needful.

On perusal of the documents on record we find that there is no necessary “No objection ‘’ from the Registering Authority of Paschim Medinipur as per Provision of  MV Act, 1988 .

After perusal of the entire materials on record  including the written version, examination in-chief and reply thereto, we are of the view  that as the present system is running under the computer soft wire of VAHAN 4 system it will not be possible  for the OP to grant any registration certificate  to the complainant if  ‘No objection’’  has been received by the complainant from the Registering Authority Paschim Medinipur or if the application is made before the M V Department,Contai. It is an irregularity on the part of the complainant  which should be cured.

There is no question of payment of compensation to the complainant by the OP as the complainant has done a mistake in respect of application for registration of the vehicle. The complainant should apply before the Proper Forum for renewal of the registration of his vehicle.

Both the issues are answered accordingly.   

            Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/97 of 2018 be and the same is disposed of on contest against both the OP.

The complainant  is directed to follow the present rules of registration of vehicle under VAHAN- 4 system. The OP is also directed to help and guide the complainant within one month from the date of this order so that the complainant can get the registration certificate from the Proper Authority of the M.V Department i,d the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution according to law.

Considering the facts of the case there will be no order of compensation or litigation.

Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.