O R D E R

By  Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair, Member :

          Complainant has purchased a Maruthi Alto LX1 car from the 1^st opposite party, who has done the entire transactions including the delivery.  Engine No. and Chasis No. of the vehicle are as follows: F8DN5292345, MA3EUA61500508925JE.  The bill was issued by the 2^nd opposite party.  Registered owner of the vehicle is the 1^st complainant.  2^nd complainant is her husband.  Temporary Regn.No. KL9/T-Temp-2351 was arranged by the  1^st opposite party and the same was fixed by them charging its fees.  As per rules and instructed by them the validity of this temporary registration was only one month.  On 10/12/2014 2^nd complainant was proceeding to Guruvayur R.T.O. office from his home at Kandanassery for the purpose of permanent registration  and when reached at the place ‘Mavinchuvadu’ which is in between Guruvayur and Choondal inspection wing of the MV department stopped the vehicle in the mid road and after verifying the documents of the vehicle and of the temporary registration board, charged a fine of Rs.2,000/- finding that the exhibited temporary Reg.No. is not in the proper size and in the prescribed manner.  It tentamounts to violation of Sec.39 of the MV Act as said by the M.V. authorities.  The board being fixed by the 1^st opposite party, who is none other than a well experienced and renowned dealer, has the sole responsibility of this untoward happening.  Had it been fixed in accordance with the prescribed  size and manner as per rules, the disgrace and mental agony of the complainant could have been avoided.  As they failed to comply with the prescribed norms after taking charges for all such services, the opposite parties are liable and there is a clear cut deficiency in service.    1^st complainant is a professor of Government Engineering College and  her husband 2^nd complainant is a building contractor.  Aggrieved by the above acts of the opposite parties a lawyer notice was sent on 18/12/2014 but of no avail.  Hence this complaint for getting a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- and the costs to mitigate the sufferings  and irreparable losses  endured  because of the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

          2. The case was admitted, issued notices to all the opposite parties.  Opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed version through their counsel.  In the version following defenses were taken after categorized denial of everything.  Opposite parties aver that the factum of charging fine and its details are not known to them.  They have fixed the number plate with temporary Reg.No. in the  usual size and manner as is done in all the  outlets of these opposite parties in Kerala.  In fact, the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 or Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 or may other  law for the time being had not prescribed the manner or the size for the temporary registration number to be exhibited on any vehicle.  An application for information with regard to the existence of any rules prescribing the size and manner under RTI Act 2005 before the Information Officer of Sub R.T.O., Guruvayur, was answered  negative.  In the circumstances it would have been a better choice to the complainant to approach before the Hon’ble High Court.  There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  The complaint may therefore be dismissed with exemplary cost.

          3. Then the case posted for evidence and the points for consideration are :

1) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2) If so cost and reliefs

          4. Both parties produced proof affidavits and documents.  Complainant produced 9 documents, and marked as Exts.P1 to P9.  Ext.P1 is work sheet (Indus Motors), Ext.P2 is proforma invoice, Ext.P3 is receipt No.183398, Ext.P4 is lawyer notice dated 18/12/2014, Ext.P5 is proof of delivery, Ext.P6 is temporary reg. – memo of charges and penalty imposed, Ext.P7 is photographs of number plate, Ext.P8 is car photo and Ext.P9 is car video.  Opposite parties produced one document and marked as Ext.R1.  Ext.R1 is the information received under RTI Act 2005.  A witness from the side of opposite parties was  also examined.  His deposition was marked as RW1. 

          5. Appreciation of evidence : We have perused the entire documents, proof affidavits, argument notes and deposition.  We are convinced that the opposite parties have not discharged an obligation undertaken as an add on service for the promotion of sales and services.  They ought to have fixed the  number plate in the prescribed size and manner.  It is only a lame   excuse that they do not know the rules and regulations.  All over Kerala, the same size and manner were adopted will not come to their rescue.  The competent authority set them free unhampered from any charge or penalty even after using the same for all these  years cannot be the rule but only an exception in  extreme circumstances in the absence of state regulation or any such statutory controls.   This Commission was expecting a different contention from the opposite parties that Section 50 & 51 are applicable to permanent registration only.  In the Rule 50 itself it is laid down that “on or after the commencement of this rule the registration mark referred to in sub section (6) of section 41 shall be displayed”.  If it was applied to temporary registration the necessary reference to Section 43 must have been given.  However both parties are  satisfied with present position and no confusion for them between temporary and permanent registration.  This Commission is joining with them to hold that for temporary and permanent registration the size and manner in which the marks are displayed must be the same. 

          6. Ignorantia Juris non excusat – Ignorance of law is not an excuse.  The opposite parties ought to have taken more care while preparing the display number plate.  Without any elaboration or further examination this Commission is in favour of giving a right verdict to the complainant for an avoidable lapse or shortcoming which tentamounts to deficiency in service.

          7. Relief and cost : It seems that 2^nd complainant was on the wheel.  The vehicle belongs to 1^st complainant being the registered owner.  This Commission has taken into consideration the loss of Rs.2,000/- towards fine paid as well as the mental heaviness on that particular time.  Having found that there is deficiency in service we are inclined to award a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)  to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally.  Complainant is at liberty to proceed against any one of his choice also or both.  Complaint allowed.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission  this the 30^th    day  of   September 2020.

Sd/-                      Sd/-                                          Sd/-

Sreeja.S                Dr.K.Radhakrishnan Nair         C.T.Sabu                       

Member                Member                                    President                           

                                      Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits

 Ext.P1 work sheet (Indus Motors),

Ext.P2 proforma invoice,

Ext.P3 Receipt No.183398,

Ext.P4 Lawyer notice dated 18/12/2014,

Ext.P5 proof of delivery,

Ext.P6 Temporary reg. – memo of charges and penalty imposed,

Ext.P7 photographs of number plate,

Ext.P8 car photo and Ext.P9 is car video  

Opposite Party’s Exhibit

Ext.R1 Information received under RTI Act 2005

Opposite Party’s witness

RW1 – Binoy Chacko                                                                

                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                      Member