D.O.F:24/08/2020

                                                                                                  D.O.O:30/09/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.No.100/2020

Dated this, the 30^th  day of September 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Gopakumar.N aged 43 years

S/o (late) Neelambaran.K

Sabari House, Pallott

Anadhasramam. P.O – 671531                                         : Complainant

Ajannur  Village, Hosdurg Taluk

Kasaragod.

(Adv: Padmanabhan)

                                                             And

Pace Motors,

Authorised Dealer of Honda Motorcycle &

Scooter India Pvt Ltd , 365 E and 365 F

Ramson Complex, Kovallpally,

Kanhangad South   - 671315                                            : Opposite Party       

(Adv: Madhavan Malankad)                                              :

                                                                                                                                                                                                             ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

            The facts of the case is short that the complainant purchased a new scooter in exchange for his old vehicle.  He paid Rs. 75494/- to the Opposite party, he got the vehicle on 30/09/2019.  Vehicle is with its record is produced before RTO Hosdurg, but registration certificate is not yet received due to non-submission of protective number plate by Opposite party.  The complainant is seeking damages for police harassment and mental agony due to deficiency in service of Opposite party.

            The Opposite party filed version denying the allegation.  The complainant purchased the vehicle from Opposite party by paying price.  The registration of vehicle is delayed not due to any act or omission on the part of Opposite party.  There was no delay in informing the RTO relating to fixing of protection number plate.  The Opposite party denied that the complainant was subjected to any harassment by police or suffered any insulting words due to delay in registration of vehicle.  There was no delay or deficiency in service of Opposite party and Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant.  The delay in registration is caused due to technical error of vehicle registration on the system during the relevant period, that there was no entry to the system due to technical error shown them.  It is not due to any negligence or deficiency in service of the Opposite party.  Complainant is case is that he suffered mental pain and agony is denied and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as Pw1, Ext A1 toA3 documents marked.  The Opposite party has not adduced any evidence.  Ext A1 to A3 marked , Ext A1 is letter to RTO, Ext A2 police check report, A3 series bills issued by Opposite party.

            Following points arise for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service the Opposite party?
2. Whether  complainant is entitled for compensation?

If so for what relief?

The complainant says that there is delay in getting R.C from RTO office after registration Pw1 while in cross examination admit that vehicle is registered in his name. He further admits that dealer provided all the records relating to the vehicle for registration and he has no grievance in the matter.He admit he got R.C of the vehicle through post from RTO office.He admits after registration RC is to be sent by RTO.No complaint is filed against dealer.He denied the suggestions that due to technical error there will be delay in registering the vehicle.Pw1 in page number 3 of the deposition, admit that he is still using the vehicle.The complaint did not state when actually he received the RC of the vehicle.

Considering the facts, the dealer has produced all the records of the vehicle before registration authority and taken all the steps on their side and also the fact that the R.C of vehicle is pre pared and to be sent to the complainant by registered post by RTO concerned.As such even if there is any delay caused due to any reason from the office of the RTO dealer is not responsible for the same.

The preparing and sending the RC is not within the control of the dealer.The Commission holds that there is no evidence to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Opposite party and this complaint is not entitled to claim any damages or compensation from Opposite party.

In the result the complaint is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Letter to RTO

A2- Police check report

A3- Series bills

Witness Examined

Pw1- Gopakumar.N

Sd/-Sd/-Sd/-

MEMBERMEMBERPRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/