State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Jaipratap Singh Bundela vs M/S Manish Motors on 29 July, 2022
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PLOT NO. 76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL (M.P.)
FA No.400 / 2018.
Jaipratap Singh Bundela,
s/o Shri Surya Pratap Singh Bundela,
R/o Ward No.02, Saura Road,
Vishwanath Colony, Chhatarpur (M.P.). .... APPELLANT.
Versus
1.Tha Manager, M/s Manish Motors, In front of Royald Emasald Green, In front of Star Auto Mobile, Rewa Road, Satna (M.P.).
2. The Manager, Royalenfield, Thiruvantipur High Road, Thiruvontupur, Anjumjungam Nagar, Sandra Pandianar Nagar, Thrivontipuram, Chennai (Tamilnadu).
3. Additional Road Transport Officer, Mahoba Road, Chhatarpur (M.P.). .... RESPONDENTS. As per Shri Justice Shantanu Kemkar, (oral) :
Date of ORDER Order 29.07.2022 Shri Avnish Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Lalit Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2. None for the respondent no.3 though served. Heard.
- 2- This appeal arises out of the order dated 25.9.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhatarpur (for short the 'District Commission') in Consumer Complaint No.176/2017 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the appellant
- complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the appellant had purchased a Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle of 2016 model from the first respondent. During the process of registration of the motor cycle Form 21 was given to him by the RTO Satna. In the said Form RTO Satna mistakenly recorded manufacturing year of the motor cycle as March 2017 and on the basis of this error in the Form 21 the RTO Chhatarpur refused to register the vehicle. According to the appellant
- complainant in the absence of registration he could not use the vehicle and as a result alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents he filed the complaint case seeking compensation.
3. The respondent no.1 and 2 filed reply and denied the allegations. The respondent no.3 - RTO, Chhatarpur also denied the averments made in the complaint. According to the respondents for the alleged mistake of the office of RTO Satna they cannot be held liable.
4. The District Commission after recording the evidence dismissed the complaint as stated above.
- 3-
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of the impugned order we find that there is no dispute that the motor cycle purchased by the appellant - complainant was of 2016 model. The same was sold by the respondent no.1 and 2 to the appellant in March 2017. Thus, 2016 model Royal Enfield Bullet motorcycle was sold in March 2017.
6. The pleadings and the evidence leads to a conclusion that the entire controversy started due to the mistaken entry into Form 21 issued by the RTO, Satna by mentioning manufacturing year of the motor cycle to be 2017 in place of 2016. Due to this mistake on the part of the RTO, Satna, RTO Chhatarpur declined to register the vehicle in the name of the appellant - complainant. This mistake needs to be corrected.
7. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to give liberty to the appellant - complainant to make a detailed representation with supporting documents before the RTO Satna in regard to his grievance so as to correct the relevant entry in the record and in Form 21. On receipt of such representation the RTO Satna shall consider the same and shall take appropriate decision and shall issue corrected form within one month from the date of receipt of such representation from the appellant.
- 4-
8. We hope and trust that the RTO Satna shall do the needful and if required shall correct the mistake within the aforesaid time to avoid any further litigation in the matter.
9. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of.
(Justice Shantanu S. Kemkar) (D. K.Shrivastava)
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Phadke