By Smt.Padmini Sudheesh, President

            The complainant  has two tourist taxi permit.  The permits were  terminated on 31/7/06 and 21/8/06 respectively and the complainant applied  to get the same extended but it was not done owing to the deficiency in service of the respondents.   The complainant is living out of the income derived from plying these taxies.  The complainant paid required fees in 2^nd respondent office  in order to renew the permit.  But the 2^nd respondent failed to despatch   the same to 3^rd respondent in time and the 3^rd respondent after accepting the same did not extend the permit.  So the complainant filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court ordered to consider and pass orders on those applications.  Consequent to this on 9/11/06 the permit was renewed.  Due to the acts of the respondents the complainant had occurred loss for an amount of Rs.1,500/- per day for 69 days.  Hence the complaint.

          2. The counter of respondents is that the complainant submitted the application to renew the permit of KL8-7986 vehicle only on 21/8/06 late by 28 days.  The complainant suppressed the delay in submitting the application.  The State Transport authority has only the right to give authorization to tourist taxies.  As per that the local authorities will renew the permit.  It is denied that the complainant had occurred heavy loss and mental agony.  There is no default from these respondents in implementing   the order passed by Hon’ble High Court.  The application submitted by the 2^nd respondent on 21/8/06 was forwarded to state transport authority on 11/9/06 itself and as per the order of state transport authority an order was obtained to 2^nd respondent  and as per that  the authorization was  renewed on 2/11/06.  It is incorrect and denied that Rs.1,500/- per day loss was caused to complainant.  Hence dismiss.

          3. Points for consideration are:

1) Was there any deficiency in service from the respondents ?

2) If so reliefs and costs?

          4. The evidence adduced consists of Exhibits  P1 to P5 and Exhibits R1 to R6.  No oral evidence adduced by both.

          5. Points: The complaint is filed to get compensation for the loss occurred to complainant by not plying the tourist vehicles for 69 days.  It is the case that even after he had applied  to get the permits renewed in time the respondents willfully delayed the renewal.  So he could not  ply the vehicles and so loss of Rs.1,000/- per day was caused due to the nonplying of Scorpio vehicle and Rs.500/-  from Indica vehicle. 

          6. The complainant did not adduce any evidence  and only produced 5 documents and are marked as Exhibits P1 to P5.  There is no documents to show that such a loss was caused to him.  He only produced the receipt to show payment made,  acknowledgement of the same etc.   There are not at all any oral or documentary evidence to show that such a loss was caused to him.  The respondents produced the application received from complainant, forwarding letter etc to show that there was no deficiency in service from their part.  Since there is no evidence to show that loss was occurred to complainant the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          7. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

          Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 29^th day of November 2010.