By: Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
The grievance of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had purchased a vehicle on 30/05/2016 from the opposite parties after making payment of Rs.13,50,000/- ( Rupees Thirteen Lakh fifty thousand only ). The chassis number of the vehicle is MBIPAECDXJED8571 and Engine number is JDEZ415942. The complainant had paid Rs.33,268/- ( Rupees Thirty three thousand two hundred and sixty eight only) as premium of insurance on 04/ 06/2018 to the Oriental Insurance Company. Thereafter the complainant paid additional premium of Rs.24,477/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand four hundred and seventy seven only) to the above said Insurance Company . The complainant had also spent Rs.7,94,200/- (Rupees Seven lakh ninety four thousand two hundred only) for body construction of the vehicle . Thereafter the complainant approached RTO , Ponnani on 05/06/2018 for the registration of the vehicle . But it was informed from the registration authority that form 22 was incomplete and registration cannot be done based on incomplete documents. According to the complainant form 22 is a basic document for the movement of vehicle till its registration. The form 22 document should contain elaborate features of the vehicle and copy has to be sent to green tribunal also. So the opposite parties are bound to issue complete and cogent details pertaining to the vehicle in form 22. Even though complainant could manage to register the vehicle on 23/08/2018 but RC form was detained by the registration authority until 07/09/2018. In pursuance to the continuous efforts made by the complainant, the opposite parties issued corrected document of form 22 and the delay happened in the issuance of registration certificate of the vehicle was because of non delivery of valid form 22 document by the opposite parties.
2. The complainant had availed a vehicle loan from HDFC bank Nadakavu branch and he had to make repayment of Rs.33,970/- (Rupees thirty-three thousand nine hundred and seventy) as EMI . The complainant had remitted first EMI on 01/06/2018 and also remitted another two installments as part of repayment of vehicle loan. Accordingly, the complainant had remitted total Rs.1,01,910/ (Rupees one lakh one thousand nine hundred and ten only). The above said amount was paid without make use of the vehicle for earning. The complainant could not use the vehicle due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. Moreover, the complainant had remitted insurance premium of Rs. 57,745/- at the very inception of the purchase of the vehicle. So the complainant had lost three months insurance premium due to non-completion of registration work. It is further stated by the complainant that he had already running a bus and in order to replace the old bus he purchased a new vehicle. But failure to replace his old bus with the new one, the complainant had compelled to pay road tax for Rs. 20,000/- for three months for the old vehicle. It is averred by the complainant that due to the negligent act of the opposite parties he had sustained financial loss of Rs.1,41,158/-. The opposite parties are liable to refund the expenses incurred by the complainant. The act of the opposite parties also caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant and vehicle is still remained unused. The complainant prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs.1,41,158/- to the complainant as the financial loss sustained due to the negligent act of the opposite parties . The complainant had also prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the sufferings of mental agony and hardship .The complainant claimed Rs.25,000/- from the opposite parties as the cost of the proceedings .
3. The complaint is admitted on file and issued notice to the opposite parties. All opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed versions.
4. In the version, the first opposite party contended that that the complainant is not a consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a vehicle as averred in the complaint but the purchase of vehicle was intended to make use of it for commercial purpose. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is stated that the complainant had taken delivery of the vehicle on 30/05/2018 and handed over all the requisite documents required for the registration of the vehicle including form 22 dated 29/05/2018. The complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party that the form 22 provided by the manufacturer was incomplete. According to the opposite party he had taken up the matter with the manufacturer and consequently a fresh and complete form 22 was issued to the complainant for registration purpose. Subsequently, the complainant had done registration of his vehicle on 23/08/2018. It is averred that the first opposite party is not at all liable for delay of registration as alleged by the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought for in the complaint. So the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
5. The second and third opposite parties also filed version jointly and denied the allegations made out in the complaint. The opposite parties questioned the states of the complainant as a consumer and challenged the maintainability of the complaint. The opposite parties are denied all allegations except the fact that complainant had purchased the vehicle as stated in the complaint. The complainant preferred the vexatious complaint with sole intention of causing hardship to the opposite parties and thereby making unlawful gain out of the same. The complainant is failed to make out allegations of manufacturing defect or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties. It is contended by the opposite parties that the complainant is doing business of operating a fleet of buses and the vehicle involved in this case is being used in his business. It is submitted that the complainant had purchased two vehicles on the same date from the third opposite party’s dealer ship. It is also alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant had hired several drivers to drive his fleet of buses including the vehicle stated in the present complaint. The complainant was not using the vehicle for earning of his livelihood by means of self-employment. According to the opposite parties the cost of product is a huge one and it cannot be used without employing other persons. The opposite parties also alleged that complainant had admitted that he was doing business. So the complainant cannot seek any remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The opposite parties averred that vehicle was sold by the dealer on 30/05/2018 and its delivery was effected on 05/06/2018. The vehicle was taken to body builder engaged by the complainant and body building process continued for 60 days for its completion. Thereafter 15 days delay were happened for taking the vehicle for registration purpose. Even a clarification was sought by R.T.O, on body code related issues from the body builder engaged by the complainant resulting further delay of 15 days. After the clarification received from body builder, the R TO had inspected the documents submitted by the complainant and a typing error was found in the form 22 as there were certain BS IV emission values were missing. According to the opposite parties when the complainant approached the dealer for issuing a corrected form 22 on 23/09/2018, the dealer had promptly informed the third opposite party at Chennai as the document has to be issued only by the manufacturer. Accordingly the opposite parties acted immediately on the request of complainant and dispatched the corrected form 22 and same was handed over to the complainant on 10/09/2018. It is stated by the opposite parties that there was no delay from the side of the third opposite party in providing the corrected form 22. It is further alleged by the opposite parties that the complainant had suppressed the delay of registration proceedings happened from his side. So the complainant approached the Commission with un cleaned hands. The opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of complaint with compensatory cost.
6. The complainant and second and third opposite parties filed affidavits. The first opposite party not filed affidavit. The documents produced from the side of the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 document is the copy of Certificate of registration of the vehicle No .KL 54 K 6732 issued in favour of the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of form 22 dated 29/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of tax invoice dated 30/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant. No documents are produced by the opposite parties.
7. Heard the parties and gone through documents. The commission considered the following points for adjudication
1) Whether the allegation raised by the complainant amounts to deficiency in service by the opposite parties?.
2) The Relief and cost of the proceedings.
8. Point No.1 and 2
The complainant had purchased the vehicle engine and chassis on 30/05/2016 from the opposite parties after availing financial assistance from HDFC bank Nadakavu Branch, Kozhikode. According to the complainant he paid Rs. 13,50,000/- as consideration and produced tax invoice before the Commission. The Commission marked copy of tax invoice as Ext. A3 document. According to the complainant he remitted insurance premium to the above said vehicle covering a period of 04/06/2018 to 03/06/2019. The complainant contended that he is already running a bus route and in order to substitute that bus he purchased a new bus from the opposite party as per Ext. A3 document. The complainant also produced copy of registration certificate of the newly purchased bus and same is marked as Ext. A1 document. But when he approached for registration proceedings before the Road Transport Department of Government of Kerala, his application was rejected on the ground of none production of a duly filled form 22 document. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite parties issued incomplete form 22 document for registration purpose as there was no details of pollution standards or emission. It is further stated by the complainant that details of the vehicle intended for registration are required in form 22 document, so the opposite parities negligently issued the certificate form 22 resulting rejection of registration of vehicle. It is stated in the complaint and affidavit filed in lieu of evidence that opposite parties are bound to hand over details of the vehicle in form 22 document. The complainant produced copy of form 22 dated 29/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties and same is marked as Ext. A2 document by the Commission.
9. The first opposite party fail to adduce evidence to support his contention made out in the version. At the same time second and third opposite parties vehemently opposed the case of the complainant. It is argued by the opposite parties that delay caused for the registration of vehicle solely due to the act of the complainant himself. According to the opposite parties the vehicle was taken to the body builder engaged by the complainant and body building process continued for 60 days for its completion. It is further alleged that the complainant himself caused 15 days delay for registration proceedings. There was delay of further 15 days as R.T.O sought some clarifications on body code related issues. Thereafter the office of registration department found some clerical errors in form 22 as there was BS IV emission values were missing in it .It is stated by the opposite parties that when the complainant approached for rectification of form 22 document, the opposite parties immediately corrected and issued the corrected form 22 to the complainant within 7 days. The opposite parties contended that there is no act of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant.
10. Analyzing the evidence it can be seen that the opposite parties admitted the fact of issuance of incomplete form 22 to the complainant. Though the corrected form 22 was issued within 7 days by the opposite parties, the Commission founds that the form 22 is an important document pertaining to the registration of a vehicle. The opposite parties did not point out the lapses on the part of the complainant, if any, in connection with delay of registration as it clearly evident that delay was caused due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties . The Commission examined Ext.A2 document and found that the allegation raised by the complainant was genuine one. So it can conclude that the opposite parties committed negligence in the matter of issuance of form 22 to the complainant.
11. Considering the evidence adduced by the complainant with regard to quantum of compensation, the Commission cannot blindly pronounce an order as prayed in the complaint. According to the complainant he purchased the bus for replacing the existing one and due to delay of registration of vehicle the complainant was compelled to remit Rs.20,000/- as road tax for 3 months for his old bus cannot be accepted. Moreover the payment of insurance premium by the complainant to the newly purchased vehicle cannot be taken as a matter of gratitude on the side of the complainant, as it was a legal obligation on the part of the complainant. If the complainant wants to use a vehicle on the road, he is bound to pay tax as prescribed by law. Moreover there is no evidence to show that the complainant purchased the subject vehicle from the opposite parties for replacing an old one. The complainant also failed to produce evidence with regard to details of bus route and its permit before the Commission. So the Commission cannot ascertain whether the new bus was purchased for replacing the existing one or intended for a fresh route service. In addition there is no evidence available before the Commission in connection with the income derived from the transport service. So the Commission not considering the prayer of the complainant in connection with the loss money due to the alleged delay of registration proceedings.
12. The contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer cannot be accepted as the opposite parties failed to adduce evidence on that aspect. According to the opposite parties, the complainant is doing business of operating a fleet of buses and vehicle involved in this case is being used in connection with his business. The opposite parties even alleged that the complainant had purchased two vehicles on the same date from the opposite parties’ dealer. When attending the above contentions of the opposite parties, the Commission finds it as untrustworthy and without any bonafide . In a situation where the opposite parties are raising such contention as it affects the identity of the complainant, the opposite parties should have produced sufficient details to support their contention. As long as no contrary evidence is available, the Commission finds that the complainant is a Consumer competent to adjudicate his grievance before the Commission. So in this juncture, the Commission finds that the opposite parties are liable to be answered on the point of non issuance of proper document to the complainant for registration purpose. The opposite parties committed act of deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed partly in the following manner.
1) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service committed against the complaint.
2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order; otherwise the entire amount shall bear 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dated this 24th day of April , 2023.
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3
Ext.A1: Copy of Certificate of registration of the vehicle No .KL 54 K6732 issued in
favour of the complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of form 22 dated 29/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties to the
complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of tax invoice dated 30/05/2018 issued by the opposite parties in favour
of the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
VPH
