STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                      FA 312 of 2014

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 298 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM III, HYDERABAD

Between :

M/s. Orange Auto Pvt. Ltd

Rep. by its Proprietor/Manager,

6-3-249/3, Road No.1

Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 34           ..        Appellant/opposite party

And

Shaik Masi, S/o Shaik Dawood,

H.No. 6-4-75/23, Dhyagawada,

Nirmal, Adilabad – 504 106                ..        Respondent/complainant

Counsel for the Appellant                  :   M/s. Indus Law Firm

Counsel for the Respondent               :    served

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Tuesday, the Third  Day of April

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the opposite party  praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 24/02/2014 made in CC  298 of 2012  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM III, Hyderabad.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the second complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a Chevorlet Car. TAVERA B-3, 10NEO-20 vehicle on 04.03.2011 vide Delivery Challan No. 5672 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- under hypothecation to Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd, Karimnagar and it was registered under temporary registration No. AP 09 UH T/R 1836 in his name.  Unfortunately, in the Form 21 of the Sale Certificate, the manufacturing date was typed as 02/2010 instead of 02/2011 by the opposite party and on that ground the RTA authorities refused to register the same despite many requests and correspondence. Therefore, he could not use the vehicle even after 16  months of purchase of the vehicle and sustained loss of earning.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to get the vehicle registered with RTA, Adilabad while bearing cost of the same, to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony etc.

4).      The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the vehicle in question was purchased by the complainant and it was registered under temporary registration and the manufacturing date was printed as 2010  in stead of 2011, contended that  they followed up with RTA, Hyderabad and got issued a Memo to the Deputy Transport Commissioner, Adilabad to take necessary action and that the delay was caused due to Telangana Bandh and the  absence of concerned RTA officials.  They denied that the vehicle was kept idle. The complainant did not cooperate with them. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5).      During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his  case, the complainant filed his   evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1  to 15  and the opposite party filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 and B2. Both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, directed the opposite party to pay sum of  Rs.30,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8).      Heard the counsel for the appellant and he requested to treat the grounds of appeal as written arguments. No representation for respondent despite service of notice.

09)     The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No. 1 :

There is no dispute that the respondent/complainant purchased the vehicle in question from the appellant/opposite party under hypothecation with Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd and it was registered temporarily.  There is also no dispute that the manufacturing date was typed as 02/2010 instead of 02/2011 by the appellant/opposite party.  There is also no dispute that the RTA authorities refused to register the same on that ground. There is also no dispute that during pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the  said vehicle was registered by the appellant/opposite party and also got the vehicle insured at the cost of the appellant/opposite party as a gesture of good will.

11).    The District Forum observed that the appellant/opposite party failed to rectify the mistake in Form 21 and  delayed in registering the vehicle which amounts to deficiency in service as it is illegal  to ply the vehicle without registration and it is risk without insurance, though, the vehicle was registered and it was insured by the appellant/opposite party  and further the argument of the respondent/complainant that he could not earn due to non-plying of the vehicle was not accepted on the ground that the meter reading of the vehicle had logged at  58,229 kms on 22.10.2013.

12).    Counsel for the appellant/opposite party argued that the District Forum failed to appreciate that the vehicle has plied 58,229kms  and  in fact they had to pay Rs.3,000/- for getting the vehicle insured and registered and actually  it is the duty of the purchaser of the vehicle to get it registered. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant did not choose to appear before this Commission though notice was served.  It is an admitted fact that mistake had occurred with regard to manufacturing date of the vehicle and on that ground  the RTA authorities refused to register the same. The  appellant/opposite party is  arguing that due to Telangana Bandh they could not rectify the defect  and hence there was delay. Even thereafter also,  they did not choose to take immediate steps  when they received the legal notice dated 25.05.2012.  After filing of the complaint only they have rectified it and insured the vehicle.  The appellant took shelter on the shadow of Telangana Bandh. All these months he had undergone mental agony by making rounds around the office of the appellant and making correspondence with them.  The respondent/complainant also has to pay legal expenses to his advocate.  If the mistake was rectified immediately then  this problem would not have arisen, they need not pay the amount and need not come to the Court. Of course, it is a small mistake and they could have rectified it immediately, if they had chosen to do so. The appellant has given the chance to the respondent to approach the Court.  Hence the respondent has to be compensated for the same. We do not find any error in the impugned order. 

13.               After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.

14.     Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 24.02.2014 in C C 298 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated : 03.04.2018.