Haryana

Panchkula

CC/230/2020

AMAR NATH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER.,STATE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

27 Dec 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	230 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	07.08.2020
Date of Decision	:	27.12.2021

 

 

Amar Nath s/o Chaman Lal R/o Flat No.104, GHS 15, Sector-20, Panchkula.

                                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

1.      The Transport Commissioner, State Transport Department,        Haryana 30 Bays Building, 2^nd Floor, Sector-17C, Chandigarh.

2.      The Registration and Licensing Authority cum SDM Panchkula, Sector-1, Panchkula.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:                Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Complainant  in person.    

Sh. Sajjan Kumar, Authorised representative of OPs No.1 & 2.

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased the vehicle make Maruti-800 Registration No.HR10F-0243 chassis no.SB308IN1739349 engine no.F8BIN2417732 model 2003 from Smt. Urmila Gupta in the year 2008. After purchasing the vehicle, the complainant approached to the OP for the transfer of the vehicle and OP transferred the vehicle in the name of complainant vide no.(OD/TO/429/2008-09). It is alleged that in the month of Feb-2020, the complainant again approach to the OP for the renewal of registration of the vehicle prior to the expiry of registration certificate i.e. 07.02.2020. But the complainant got surprised to know that the OP has charged the excess fee/penalty of Rs. 10000/- from him and charges Rs.11080/-which included renewal of registration Rs.10,600/-, smart card fee Rs.200/-, service/use charge Rs.250 and Postal fee Rs.30/-.The smart card received to the complainant is of inferior quality, is not legible, and has wrong address. The address mentioned is H.No.1275, Sector-15, Sonipat-134109 whereas the vehicle was already transferred to Panchkula by the complainant in 2008 resulting the smart card sent to Sonipat and the same was sent back to RTO, Panchkula which was collected by the complainant from registration authority Panchkula by hand after delay of more than two months.  The complainant approached so many times to the OP but none of the official concerned explained about the excess/ penalty charges. Thereafter, he wrote an email on 19.05.2020 to SDM Panchkula about his grievances and also submitted the letter to SDM office on 15.06.2020 for the same grievances.  But till today no action has been taken by the OP.  Due to the above said act and conduct on the part of the OPs, the complainant has suffered mental and physical agony, financial loss and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.  

2.               Upon notice, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through their authorized representative and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false. On merits, it is stated that the complainant approached the Registration and Licensing Authority cum SDM, Panchkula in the month of Feb, 2020 for renewal of registration of the vehicle which was to expire 07.02.2020. It is also stated that as per record Maruti-800 bearing registration No.HR-10F-0243 got registered with R.A.M.V. Sonipat on 08.02.2003. Thereafter, in the year 2008-2009, the same vehicle was sold out to Sh.Amar Nath in District Panchkula. On the registration certificate issued in the year 2003, there is mention of validity from the 08.02.2003 to 07.02.2020. There is a portal system(vehicle software) for registration of the vehicles. Online system software shows the validity upto 2018 instead of 2020. As there is delay of 2 years as per online system therefore it is showing penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. This office does not have power to exempt the penalty. Registering Authority MV Sonipat can explain the details of registration and its validity. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the authorized representative of the OPs No.1 & 2 by making a separate statement, stated that the reply filed on 16.12.2020 in the present case on behalf of the OPs No.1 & 2 may be treated as an affidavit in evidence and closed the evidence.

4.               We have heard the complainant as well as the authorized representative of OPs No.1 & 2 and gone through the entire record available on record, minutely and carefully.

5.               The complainant has alleged the deficiency on the part of the OPs on the following two counts:-

i.       That a sum of Rs.10,000/- has wrongly been charged, vide receipt  dated 05.02.2020(Annexure C-3), by the OP No.2, as penalty while      renewing his registration certificate of his car bearing no.HR-10F-   0243.

ii)      That the OP No.2, while extending the validity period issued the   registration certificate of his car i.e. HR-10F-0243 showing his         address at Sonipat instead of Panchkula and thereby caused    mental and physical harassment to the complainant.

6.               Coming to the first ground, it is evident that initially the vehicle in question was registered in the name of one Urmila, valid upto 07.02.2020, as per Annexure C-1. Further, it is also an admitted fact that the said vehicle was transferred in the name of the complainant as per Annexure C-2 on 10.12.2008 by the OP No.2 showing his address at Panchkula. The OP No.2 vide its reply has admitted in para no.3 that validity of the vehicle was from 08.02.2003 to 07.02.2020. The error in the validity period has been explained mentioning that vehicle software at its portal shows the validity period upto 2018 instead of 2020 and thus, there was delay of 2 years as per online system in renewal of the Registration Cerificate. Further, it has been mentioned that the office of OP No.2 does not possess the power to waive off the penalty. It is further mentioned that the registering authority, Motor Vehicle, Sonipat can explain the details of registration and its validity.

7.               We find no force and substance in the contentions of the OP No.2 as admittedly the registration of the vehicle in question was valid upto 07.02.2020 as per Annexure C-1. The validity period of the vehicle was in the notice of OP No.2 while transferring the vehicle on 10.12.2008 vide Annexure C-2 from its earlier owner in the name of the present complainant. The OP No.2 could have rectified the mistake/error, if any, in the validity period of the vehicle in question but the OP No.2 preferred not to disturb the validity period for the reasons best known to it.  As per well settled legal propositions, no consumer can be penalized for the negligence and lapses on the part of the OPs. Even otherwise, no lapse or deficiency has been pointed out by the OP on the part of the complainant. Moreover, the OP has made only bald assertions about the validity period upto 2018 in its software instead of 2020. No instructions or rules have been placed on record.  It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

8.               Moreover, the OP No.2 did not make any efforts to rectify the error as allegedly made by the Registering Authority, Sonipat. Even the Registering Authority, Sonipat has neither been contacted nor consulted as to how the error/mistake occurred while registering the vehicle in 2003. In the light of the above discussion, we conclude that a sum of Rs.10,000/- has wrongly been charged under the head of the penalty by the OP while renewing registration certificate of the vehicle in question and thus, OPs have been deficient while rendering services to the complainant.  

ii)      Regarding the second grievance of the complainant, it is evident that the registration certificate of the vehicle has been prepared mentioning the address of the complainant at Sonipat whereas the vehicle in question was, admittedly, transferred in the name of the complainant on 10.12.2008 showing the address at Panchkula. The OP No.2 has not explained as to how the wrong address of the complainant has been mentioned while renewing the RC in question as per (Annexure C-4). In the reply, the OP No.2 has preferred to keep silent in this regard. Therefore, we conclude that the OP No.2 has been negligent and deficient while rendering service to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.               As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

                  (i)     The OPs are directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which had been charged under the head of the penalty                   while renewing the RC of the vehicle. The OPs shall  also pay interest @ 9% per annum to the complainant  on the penalty amount of Rs. 10,000/-w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.

 

                  (ii)     The OP No.2 is directed to issue the new smart  registration card of the vehicle in question with correct                            address within a period of 30 days subject to  submission of necessary forms and fees etc.

 

                  (iii)    The OPs are also burdened with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant on account of                                mental agony, physical harassment and litigation   charges.

 

10.             The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the  date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:27.12.2021

 

Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal           

           Member                           Member                    President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                      Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                                          

        Member