O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

          The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  On 18/02/2017 the complainant purchased a vehicle from 1^st opposite party for an amount of Rs. 63,000/- including its tax insurance and accessories. It is contended that when the complainant purchased the vehicle the opposite party made to believe that the model of the vehicle was on December 2016.  When the complainant entrusted the vehicle for registration before the Joint RTO, Chaganassery on 06/03/2017 it is informed that the model of the vehicle mentioned as December 2016 is not correct and the model of the vehicle is April 2016.  So the Joint RTO was not allowed to register the vehicle.  According to the complainant the temporary registration date was expired on 22/03/2017.  It is contended that the opposite party purposefully suppressed the actual model of the vehicle so that the complainant filed a petition before the Ranni Police on 13/03/2017 and Ranni Police directed to the opposite party to replace the vehicle.  The act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under the deficiency in service as defined in Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. 
3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed a joint version as follows.  According to the opposite parties the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is contended that the opposite parties sold the said vehicle to the complainant and also given a full insurance offer to the complainant.  The complainant purchased 2016 model vehicle only for getting the insurance offer.  At the time of the purchase of the vehicle 2017 model bikes were available at opposite party’s showroom.  It is admitted that at the time of preparing records instead of 04/2016 it was mistakenly entered as 12/2016.  The said mistake happened as a clerical mistake and on 07/03/2017 the mistake of the entry informed to the Joint RTO and other superior officers of the said department.  It is contended that on 15/03/2017 the opposite party sent a notice to the complainant stating the last date of registration with fine was on 22/03/2017.  It is contended that the complainant had not sustained any kind of difficulty or mental strain as alleged by the complainant.  It is stated that in order to avoid the harassment from the vehicle department the opposite parties filed a Writ Petition (WP(C) No-15389/2017(W) before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and the said writ petition is disposed in their favour.  It is contended that this opposite parties did not suppress any fact before the complainant they did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the complainant.  Hence the opposite parties prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.
4. We peruse the compliant version and records before us and framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                          In order to prove the case of the complainant, he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as PW1.  Through PW1 Ext. A1 Ext A8 were marked.  Ext. A1 is the vehicle tax & charges invoice issued by 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A2 is the sales certificate dated:20/02/2017.  Ext. A3 series are the vehicle data sheet dated: 20/02/2017.  Ext. A4 is the production certificate dated: 09/01/2016 (Subject to Proof).  Ext. A5 is the receipt of a complaint which was issued by Police Station, Ranni. Ext. A6 is the copy of complaint file by the complainant before the Joint RTO, Changanassery.  Ext. A7 series are the documents obtained by the complainant PW1 by way of the provisions of Right to Information Act dated: 16/06/2017 and 27/04/2017.  Ext. A8 is a copy of an affidavit filed by the complainant dated: 20/02/2017 before the vehicle department. Ext. A9 is the valid insurance for this vehicle and it was expired on 19/02/2018.  On the other side the 2^nd opposite party he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and examined him as DW1.  Through DW1 Ext. B1 to Ext. B5 are also marked.  Ext. B1 is the temporary registration bill which was expired on 22/03/2017. Ext. B2 dated:07/03/2017 shows that the opposite party admitted the clerical error happened in the office of opposite party by sending this letter. Ext. B3 is the letter issued by opposite party against Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram by informing the clerical error dated: 20/03/2017. Ext.B4 is a letter to the RTO, Pathanamthitta. Ext. B5 is the order issue by our Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.15389/2017 in favour of the opposite party.   After the closure of evidence we heard both sides.

5.  Point No.1 :- The opposite party strongly contended that the case is not maintainable either in law or on fact.  When we look into the evidence of this case it is revealed that the complainant he who purchased a motor bike from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 63,000/-.  The opposite party herein admitted the transaction and the consideration which the complainant paid to him.  If so we can clearly come to a conclusion that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite parties are services providers of the complainant.  Therefore Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant.

                   7. Point No.2&3:- The complainant who is examined as PW1 deposed that he purchased a bike from 1^st opposite party by paying an amount of Rs. 54,930/-.  In order to prove this fact PW1 produced and marked Ext. A1 the vehicle charges invoices issued by 1^st opposite party.  Ext. A2 is a sales certificate issued by opposite party stating the vehicle details.  In the said Ext. A2 the month and year of manufacturer is shown as 12/2016.  The complainant seriously contended that he was intended to purchase a model 2017 but the opposite parties delivered a model 2016 bike to him.  Though the complainant pleaded this fact the complainant adduced any evidence to show that the opposite party misrepresented the complainant and delivered model 2016 bike to him. It is also admitted that for model 2016 bike the opposite party has given an insurance offer to the complainant.  When we are going into the details of the contention it is revealed that the bike which was delivered to the complainant was a model 04/2016 and not model 12/2016.  Anyway the opposite parties already admitted that instead of mentioning 04/2016 by mistake it is mentioned as 12/2016.  As a result of this mistake it is proved that the complainant could not register the vehicle in time and it caused severe loss and damage to him.  When we go through Ext. A3 we can see the details of the chases number, engine number and details of the fees which required for the permanent registration of the said vehicle.  The model of the vehicle has not been seen anywhere Ext. A3 page 1.  Ext. A4 is a document which was issued by zuzuki company to show 2016 model production and its starting frame number.  Ext. A5 is a receipt of a complaint which was issued by Ranni Police in favour of the complainant.  Ext. A6 is a copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the Joint RTO, Changanassery stating the irregularities happened at the time of the vehicle.  Ext. A7 is a document obtained by the complainant PW1 by way of the provisions of Right to Information Act.  As per Ext. A7 series we can see that the trade certificate of the opposite party had been suspended for one month by Commissionarate Transport, Kerala by his letter to complainant dated:16/06/2017.  Ext. A8 is a copy of an affidavit filed by the complainant dated: 20/02/2017 before the vehicle department which shows that complainant did not pay any extra payment to dealer of the vehicle or to any individual for the purpose of the said registration.  Ext. A9 is a Motor Insurance Package Policy certificate in favour of the complainant which shows that the policy is valid from 20/02/2017 to 19/02/2018.  When we peruse the above document marked in favour of the complainant it is to be attributed that the complainant’s vehicle is not having any permanent registration even at this time and also evident to see that as per Ext. A9 it is proved that there was a valid insurance for this vehicle and it was expired on 19/02/2018.  The case of the complainant is that due to the mistake committed by the opposite parties the complainant could not use the vehicle in road and the vehicle is simply keeping in his premises without any use. 

           8. On the other side the opposite parties examined DW1 in their favour and marked Ext. B1 to Ext. B5 in their favour.  Ext. B1 is marked at the time of the cross examination of PW1.  When we peruse this Ext. B1 we can see that the temporary registration would expired on 22/03/2017 and late fee of Rs. 2,000/- would be charged for its permanent registration as a fine excluding the permanent registration fee.  Ext. B2 dated:07/03/2017 shows that the opposite party admitted the clerical error happened in the office of opposite party by entering 12/2016 instead of 04/2016.  Ext. B3 dated: 20/03/2017 also shows that the opposite party has informed the said clerical error to the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram.  Ext. B4 also shows that the opposite party again wrote a letter to the RTO, Pathanamthitta requested to drop the penal action against them.  Ext. B5 is an order issued by our Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.15389/2017 in favour of the opposite party.  The said order is an Interim stay against the vehicle department on proceeding against the opposite party.  On the basis of the above contention we can see that the opposite party has committed a clerical mistake when they issued Ext. A2 sales certificate dated: 20/02/2017 in favour of the complainant.  It is also the evident to see that due to the mistake happened in Ext. A2 document the complainant could not get a permanent registration for his vehicle.  It is true that when knowing the clerical mistake without making any further delay the opposite party reported the mistake to the complainant as per Ext. A1 and also informed the said clerical error to RTO, Changanasseri, the Transport Commissionarate, Thiruvananthapuram on 07/03/2017 and 20/03/2017 respectively.                 As  per Ext. B4 we can infer that the Motor Vehicle Department concerned has stayed the trade certificate of the opposite party on knowing the details of the said mistake. Anyway we can come to a conclusion that after the expiration of the

temporary certificate of registration dated:22/03/2017 no one can use the vehicle in road.  The complainant who purchased the vehicle for his own use and he was ready to register the vehicle in time.  Due to the mistake committed from the side of the opposite party he could not use the vehicle in time so that the opposite parties are liable to the complainant. Though the complainant requested for the replace of the vehicle and a huge compensation from the opposite party when considering the nature and circumstances of this case that kind of demand is so exorbitant and that cannot be considered in this case.  Anyway the complainant is eligible to get a reasonable compensation only from the opposite party and the complainant is at liberty to produce the vehicle with necessary document for the permanent registration of the vehicle before the vehicle department concerned.  We also find that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severly liable to the complainant.  Therefore we partly allowed the complaint and Point No.2&3 found accordingly. 

1. The opposite parties are here by directed to pay a

    compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

    only) to the complainant within one month of receipt of this

    order.  If fails opposite parties are liable to pay 10%  interest

    to the complainant for the said amount from the date of

    order onwards. 

2. The complainant is at liberty to furnish necessary document

    before the RTO concerned for getting permanent registration of   

    the vehicle and concerned officer of the vehicle

                          department is directed to register the said vehicle in  

                          accordance with law without making any further delay.

1. A cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) is also  

allowed to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of

receipt of this order onwards.

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2018.

                                                                                     (Sd/-)

P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)               :     (Sd/-)

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1 :  Rinumon.M.D

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Vehicle tax & charges invoice issued by 1^st opposite party. 

A2 :  Sales certificate dated:20/02/2017. 

A3 series :  Vehicle data sheet dated: 20/02/2017. 

A4: Production certificate dated: 09/01/2016 (Subject Proof).

A5 : Receipt of a complaint which was issued by Police Station, Ranni.

A6 : Copy of complaint file by the complainant before the Joint RTO,

       Changanassery.

A7:  Document optioned by the complainant PW1 by way of the provisions of 

       Right to Information Act dated: 16/06/2017, 27/04/2017. 

A8:  Copy of an affidavit file by the complainant dated: 20/02/2017 before the           

       vehicle department.

A9:  Valid insurance for this vehicle and it was expired on 19/02/2018. 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1: Thomas Vargese Oommen

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1:  Temporary registration bill expired on 22/03/2017.

B2:  The clerical error happened in the office of opposite party by entering 

       12/2016 instead of 04/2016 dated:07/03/2017.

B3 : Clerical error to the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram dated: 

        20/03/2017.

B4 : Letter to the RTO, Pathanamthitta.

B5 : Order issue by our Hon’ble High Court in WP(C) No.15389/2017 in favour 

        of the opposite party.                                                                     

                                                                                                  (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Rinumon M.D,

 Marattukulam, Madappally.P.O, Changanassery.

          (2) TOMS Motors Pvt. Ltd., Near RTO Office, Pallimukku, Ranni.

(3) TOMS Motors Pvt. Ltd., College Road, Pathanamthitta.