DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 8^th  day of November,  2021

Present    :  Sri.Vinay Menon.V  President

                :  Smt.Vidya.A, Member                                                    Date of Filing: 06/01/2018 

     CC/03/2018

Biju Udup,

Manager, Bethlehem Community English Medium School,

Pezhumpara, Chathamangalam Post,

Nenmara, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad.

(By Adv. K. Suresh Kumar)                                         -           Complainant

                                                                                      Vs

The Sales Manager,

Radhia Motors,

Authorised dealers of Force Motors Ltd.,

Diesel vehicles and spares, Coimbatore Road,

Koottupatha, Palakkad – 678 007.

(Adv. A.A. Abdullah)                                                    -           Opposite party

O R D E R 

By Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

1. The complainant is the manager of Bethlehem Community English Medium School that purchased a school bus from the opposite party for an amount of                         Rs. 12,76,543/-. The vehicle was delivered on 31.07.2017. Complainant got the vehicle registered before the RTO, Chittur. But the RTO did not issue permit as a  cess of 15% for vehicles with capacity of over 10+1 was not paid. The complainant had submitted the entire documents handed over by the opposite parties. The opposite parties failed to handover  the documents required before the RTO which is a  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Thereafter the complainant amended the complaint inserting the pleading that the opposite party approached the RTO and got the impediment regarding cess. But they made a mistake while entering serial number of the speed governor leading to further delay.   The vehicle was purchased by availing loan from Bank and interest had to be paid without plying the vehicle. The complainant also had to rent vehicle expending huge amounts. The complainant alleged that this loss  due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

2.         The opposite party filed version and additional version (without legal assistance). They contented that the bus was delivered on 02.08.2017 and not on 31.07.2017. The vehicle got registered on 03.08.2017. They admitted that the complainant had contacted them on 30.08.2017 and informed them regarding the issue of 15% tax. As 01.09.2017 to 06.09.2017 were Onam Holidays, the opposite party had contacted the RTO after holidays and clarified that the vehicle issued to the complainant did not require 15% cess and settled the issue.

In reply to the amended complaint, the opposite party averred that there was a typographical error with regard to the serial number of the speed governor fitted to the complainant’s vehicle, which they corrected immediately. The correction was carried out immediately without any delay. The delay was caused at the end of the RTO and not due to the opposite party’s  latches. And they sought for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         Pleadings and evidence considered, the following issues arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any negligence on the part of opposite party that lead to     demand of additional cess of 15% from the complainant by the RTO ?
2. Whether there is any negligence on the part of the opposite party on account of making a mistake in the serial number of the speed governor?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to losses incurred on account of leasing vehicle?

            4.         Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

5.         Reliefs and cost, if any.

4.         Evidence comprised of Proof affidavit of complainant and Exhibits A1 to A5 on the part of the complainant and proof affidavit on the part of the opposite party. There is also an interrogatory filed by the opposite party and the answers to the same by the complainant.

            Issue No. 1

5.         The complainant alleges that they received the vehicle on 31.07.2017. Admittedly, they had taken upon themselves the task of getting the vehicle registered. The contention of the complainant is that the RTO, raised demand for 15% extra cess. The opposite party failed to provide them with the documents that was required to answer the query regarding 15% cess. Failure to provide this constituted a deficiency in service.

6.         We are unable to accept this proposition. The opposite party can’t be expected to know every query or circumstance that might arise in the future. Instead, when called upon to assist, they rendered assistance by sending their staff to clarify the position regarding the query raised by the RTO. From a reading of the complaint, we feel it was a gratuitous assistance rendered by the opposite party to pull the complainant out of the loop.

That being so, we have no hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in the RTO raising a demand for additional cess of 15%.  

            Issue No.2.

7.         The 2^nd allegation is regarding the mistake that occurred in the serial number of the speed governor. A bonafide mistake can never be equated with a negligence tantamounting to deficiency in service as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act. Immediately on finding that there was a mistake, the opposite parties corrected the same.

8.         The complainant  had failed to account for the delay that occurs in bureaucratic procedures. The complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the delay occurred on account of the mistake that crept in while writing down the alpha – numeric serial number of the speed governor. Hence this issue is also found against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.

            Issue no. 3

11.       Other than pleadings regarding availing of rental vehicles, the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the same. Issue No.3 is also found against the complainant. Hence the complainant has failed to prove his case on all counts.

            Issue nos. 4 & 5

12.       In view of the findings in issue nos. 1,2 and 3, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of  the opposite parties. The complaint is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

            Pronounced in the open court on this the 8^th day of November, 2021.

  Sd/-

                                                                              Vinay Menon V

                                                 President

 Sd/-

Vidya.A

                    Member      

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Copy of the Registration Certificate belonging to vehicle bearing no.

                 KL – 70 C - 3332

Ext.A2 –  Copy of Certificate of Fitness pertaining to vehicle bearing no.

                 KL – 70 C - 3332.

Ext.A3 –  Copy of  Contract Carriage Permit bearing no. 70/917/2017

Ext.A4 –  Copy of certificate cum policy schedule bearing no. 419011/31/20/001677

Ext.A5 –  Copy of tax invoice bearing no. PV00006 dated 31/07/2017

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

 Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant

NIL

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party

NIL

Cost :  Not allowed

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.