C.C. No.385/2022

Hemalata Khuntia,

W/o. Late Sudhir Khuntia,

Vill.- Paikasta,

P.O.- Borikhi,

P.S.- Kujang,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.……… Complainant

1. Vikrant Engineers,

A/38, Industrial Estate,

Cuttack- 753010.

2. Office Head,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Paradeep Branch, Sahoo Complex,

Jagatsinghpur- 754140.

3. Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
4.  

Madhupatna, Link Road,

(In front of Durga Mandap),

Cuttack- 753010.

4. Registered Office,

Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.

Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder,

Mumbai- 400001.…….. Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. R. Mohanty & Associates

Opposite Party No.1………..Ex-parte

For O.P. No.2 to 4………..Mr. P.K. Ray & Associates

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDNET- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                        JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite party No.1 to supply all the necessary papers including R.C. Book and opposite parties No.2 to 4 be directed to supply the copy of loan agreement and also opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.3,00,000/- jointly and severally for loss of income and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation”.

            Complainant on payment of Rs.1,30,000/- as down payment the opposite party No.1 delivered one Tractor (Mahindra Tractor 475 DI Bhoomiputra) manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. having Chassis No.MBNAAAVAPKRL03529 and Engine No.RKL4YBA0373 by paying Rs.1,30,000/- and the EMI was fixed as Rs.14,085/- and the vehicle was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Finance, Paradeep Branch (O.P. No.2). The vehicle was delivered to the complainant by opposite party No.1 dtd.16.3.2019 to the complainant and the complainant has been paying the installments in regularly as opposite party No.2 to 4 are pressing hard to repay the loan and as she is not able to ply the vehicle. The opposite party No.1 has delivered the vehicle without registering the same which violates the statutory provisions of Motor Vehicle Act (Registration Provision in RTO) under that provision the vehicle cannot be allowed to cross the boundary of showroom of the opposite party No.1 without registration and insurance. It is the sole responsibility of the dealer (O.P. No.1) to sell and  registered the vehicle and insured it but the opposite party No.1 has failed in his duty to comply the same rather he has kept the documents as a result the complainant could not register the vehicle and it is lying idle.

            In this context relevant portion of Section 41 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is quoted below,

            S.41.Registration,how to be made.-(1)An application by or on behalf of the owner of a motor vehicle for registration shall be in such form and shall be accompanied by such documents, particulars and information and shall be made within such period as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

            Provided that where a motor vehicle is jointly owned by more persons than one, the application shall be made by one of them on behalf of all the owners and such applicant shall be deemed to be the owner of the motor vehicle for the purposes of this Act.

            (Provided further that in the case of a new motor vehicle, the application for registration in the State shall be made by the dealer of such motor vehicle, if the new motor vehicle is being registered in the same state in which the dealer is situated)

            It is not at all disputed that the vehicle was purchased from opposite party no.1 and it was to be registered within the State and opposite party No.1 has failed in his duty to register the vehicle is complete violation of Section 41 as quoted above.

            Notice was issued to opposite parties on 05.12.2022 and thereafter the opposite party No.1 did not appear and was set ex-parte on 23.8.2023. The opposite parties No.2 to 4 have filed their written version and written note of argument alleging default of complainant regarding paying EMI regularly.

            Since the opposite party No.1 has failed to register the vehicle with the RTO, we held the opposite party No.1 is negligent in his duty in registering the vehicle and insuring the vehicle which is gross deficiency in service as such we direct the opposite party No.1 to register the vehicle immediately bearing the entire cost of registration and for such deficiency in service. We impose cost of Rs.10,000/- on opposite party No.1 for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation to be paid to complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of the order. Opposite party No.2, 3 & 4 shall not press hard to repay the loan and repossess the vehicle at least for six months from the date of pronouncement of the order and shall not take any coercive action against the complainant till that date.    

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 26^th July,2024.