State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tmt.S.Rajammal, 74, Melmuga Nadar ... vs The Managing Director, Mahendra & ... on 23 March, 2011
BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Date of complaint : 15.10.2009 Date of order : 23.03.2011 BEFORE THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Member Judicial Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MemberC.C.No.66/2008
WEDNESDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF MARCH 2011.
Tmt.S.Rajammal, W/o.Subbaiah, 74, Melmuga Nadar Street, Kalladakuruchi, Ambasamudram Taluk, Tirunelveli District. .
Complainant Vs.
1. The Managing Director, Mahendra & Mahendra, Automobile Sector, 17-18, Pattulas Road, -2.
2. Managing Director, M/s.Kodai Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., No.176-B, Jayaraj Nadar Building, Thiruvananthapuram Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli 627 002.
3. The Regional Transport Officer, Uttamapalayam, Bodinaiyakkanoor, Theni District. .. Opposite parties This complaint coming on before us for hearing finally on 08.03.2011, upon perusing the material documents, and upon hearing the counsels for both the parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Commission made the following order.
Counsel for the Complainant : Mr.C.Dasaratha Raman, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st Opposite party : M/s.Shivakumar & Suresh, Advocates Counsel for the 2nd Opposite party : Mr.T.Ravikumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the 3rd Opposite party : Mr.K.K.Senthilkumar, Advocate.
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL The complainant filed a complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 read with Sec.2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r)
1. The details of complaint in brief as follows : The complainant has purchased Scorpio Turbo 2.6 from the 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,00,000/- on 13.4.2005 and in Registration No.76-A-5517 bearing classic No. MAITA2 BFC 52 C 65997 and Engine No.BF 54B 1249 and the vehicle met with an accident on 22.6.2006. The complainant gave it for repair to the 2nd opposite party to set right chassis which was damaged, on 25.10.06 who is the authorized dealer for the 1st opposite party and the repair was made for Rs.1,10,000/-. The complainant disposed of the vehicle to one Mr.J.Srinivasan residing at Bodinaikanur and when the vehicle was taken to 3rd opposite party on 4.12.2007 for transfer of ownership, the 3rd opposite party refused to transfer the ownership on the ground that the chassis of the vehicle was completely replaced and the original chassis number was embedded on it without permission from 3rd opposite party.
Hence the purchaser of the vehicle has no option except to cancel the sale and the complainant is not allowed to use the vehicle and constrained to put out of use and in idle. The complainant hard earned money invested in the vehicle is without any return. The 2nd opposite party failed to obtain permission from 3rd opposite party before embossing chassis number, who is well aware of the rules and regulations governing the repair of the chassis and procedure to be followed in this regard. The 2nd opposite party neglected and failed to follow the procedures in this regard and thereby caused to the complainant irreparable loss mental agony, hardship and suffering. Third opposite party though received Rs.100/- for the inspection of the vehicle on 4.12.2007 refused to attribute any reason for rejecting the transfer of ownership application and for which the complainant taken steps to get the details under RTI Act and thereby the 3rd opposite party was impleaded as a party for the same. Hence the complainant has come forward with this complaint for the reliefs of directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- for the loss of revenue since 2006 to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings as the complainant is solely depending upon the vehicle for livelihood and Rs.25,000/- towards legal and incidental expenses aggregating in all Rs.22,25,000/-.
2. All the 3rd opposite parties have filed their written version separately in which denied the allegations of the complaint. The 1st opposite party is not a necessary party to the proceedings and there is no allegation against them on this ground.
3. The 2nd opposite party stated that the complainants vehicle was repaired as per the request of the complainant for which she has paid entire bill and got delivery of the vehicle after fully satisfied. The complainant ought to have got the prior permission for machine from the concerned authority for replacement of chassis or at least within the stipulated time after replacement it should have been obtained by producing the vehicle. He failed to discharge a legal obligation and the complainant is not a consumer as the vehicle has been used for commercial purpose. No details of revenue loss were given and the claim of huge compensation is unsustainable.
4. The 3rd opposite party stated that the vehicle was altered without permission of the authority and as per the Section 52 of Motor Vehicle Act any alteration has been made in the motor vehicle without approval of the Registering authority the owner of the vehicle was within 14 days of making of the alteration report to the Registering Authority and shall forward the certificate of registration to the authority together with prescribed fees in order to make necessary entries on the certificate. The complaint failed to do the same and cannot be blamed the parties for the same. The vehicle was not produced for inspection even though fees for the same was paid and the details under RTI Act were also furnished to the complainant and the 3rd opposite party being the Government Department as they are not service providers under the Consumer Act and the 3rd opposite party in no way committed any fault in this case and there was no deficiency of service on their part.
5. Bothsides have filed their proof affidavit and on the side of the complainants documents Exhibit A1 to A7 and for the opposite parties 1 and 2 documents B1 to B5 and for the 3rd opposite party documents Exhibits B6 and B7 are filed and marked.
6. Points for determination are :-
1) Whether there are any deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party regarding the repair made to the vehicle for non compliance with the rules and regulations of 3rd opposite party ?
2) Whether there are any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties 1 and3 ?
3) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and other reliefs as prayed for ?
7. Written arguments were submitted by the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 and on perusal of written arguments and upon hearing oral submission made by both sides this Commission passing the order as follows :-
8. Point No.1 : The complainant has purchased the vehicle Scorpio Turbo 2.6 from the 1st opposite party for Rs.7,00,000/- in 2005 and he had entrusted the vehicle to the 2nd opposite party for repair due to the accident occurred and for the same, the 2nd opposite party entertained the vehicle for repair and replaced the chassis at the request of complainant in which the 2nd opposite party embossed the original chassis number on it and the complainant got delivery of the vehicle after paying the bills with satisfaction and these are all admitted by the complainant and the 2nd opposite party and through the documents Exhibit A2 and A3 and regarding the replacement of chassis also 2nd opposite party issued a certificate as Exhibit A3 in which it was clearly stated about the replacement of chassis and the letter is being issued for the purpose of relevant officials for information concerned. According to these it is the duty of the complainant to produce the vehicle before the registering authority for approval of the replacement and for making necessary entries on the R.C. book within 14 days after the repair or alteration as prescribed under the motor vehicle rules and regulations after paying necessary fees. This is the duty of the complainant and whereas the complainant stated that the 2nd opposite party ought to have informed the same to the complainant or it should have obtained the prior approval from the 3rd opposite party which are all in no way acceptable one, since the complainant being the owner of the vehicle and having altered the structure of the vehicle due to the accident occurred in 2006 and as soon as the repair and replacement were done she ought to have complied the conditions of the registering authority in this regard and failure for the same cannot be blamed against the other persons and even though the 2nd opposite party being the authorized service centre for the 1st opposite party the vehicle alleged to have been purchased in 2005 and the repair was made in 2006 and for which in no way the 1st opposite party is concerned and the 2nd opposite party done the repair as per the requirements of complainant also in no way concerned to get the prior approval or permission for alteration from the 3rd opposite party, since the vehicle is not a new one and the 2nd opposite party is not the manufacturer. But the 2nd opposite party has issued necessary certificate Exhibit A3 in which it is stated as caption, to whom it may concerned. On this basis the complainant could have been acted upon for getting the registration entered in the R.C.Book and hence we hold that there is no deficiency on the part of the 2nd opposite party and there is no need for any compensation to be payable by the 2nd opposite party in this regard.
9. Point No.2 : In this enquiry the 1st opposite party has already stated he is not a necessary party and only for the proper adjudication 1st opposite party was added as a party and as far as the 3rd opposite party is concerned, the 3rd opposite party filed documents Exhibit B6 and B7 in which registration details for refusal of inspecting the vehicle produced by the complainant on payment of fees Rs.100/- as per Exhibit A4 and the forms for transfer in Exhibit A5 sought for by the complainants advocate and letter Exhibit A6 the reply given only after filing of the complaint in Exhibit B7 in which it was stated that the complainant has applied for transfer of the name of the owner and complainant was directed to produce the vehicle for inspection on a particular date. From this it is seen even though at the earlier stage the 3rd opposite party refused to inspect the vehicle for which no reason was assigned even after necessary fees was paid under Exhibit A4 it is stated by the complainant herself in the complaint that the refusal was made because of the non obtaining of prior approval for the alteration of vehicle by changing the chassis. Hence it is also clear that there was no deficiency on the part of the 3rd opposite party even otherwise since the complainant has not taken steps to produce the vehicle for inspection as soon as the repair and alteration was made in the vehicle during the year 2006 itself and only in 2007 she has moved before 3rd opposite party that too for transfer of ownership alone which is not considered because of the earlier lacuna regarding the non entries of alterations made in the vehicle under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act and as well as under Rule 101 of the Motor vehicle Rules and thereby there cannot be any deficiency by 3rd opposite party and also being the Governments statutory body as per various rulings of the Honble National Commission they cannot be held liable for the act done in their official capacity against which the remedy for the complainant could be only before the appropriate forum like superior authorities of RTO and Motor Vehicle Tribunal and Civil Court etc. In those circumstances, the opposite parties 1 and 3 are also cannot be considered as liable for any deficiency of service.
10. Point No.3 : In view of the findings points No.1 and 2, it is clear that the complainant is not entitled for any relief before this Forum she has not produced any documents relating to the loss of revenue due to the idleness of the vehicle and no proof for the vehicle kept as idle were also produced by her. Further it was stated that the vehicle was used for commercial purpose and in those circumstances, in view of the above details and results of the findings as above the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs as sought for and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
11. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. Each parties to bear their own costs.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTS Exhibits of the complainant A1 13.04.05 Xerox copy of Bill from purchase of Scorpio vehicle.
A2 25.10.06 Xerox copy of Bill issued by Kodai Automobiles Pvt. Ltd, Palyamkottai.
A3 07.12.07 Xerox copy of letter from 2nd opposite party admitting the guilt.
A4 14.12.07 Xerox copy of Challan No.4446382.
A5 04.12.07 Xerox copy of Transfer application by Srinivasan 3rd opposite party.
A6 24.11.08 Xerox copy of letter addressed to Public Information Officer.
A7 15.12.08 Xerox copy of letter by complainants advocate to the Public Information Officer, Uthamapalayam.
Exhibits of the opposite parties 1 & 2 B1 - Xerox copy of Job Requisition Form.
B2 22.06.06 Xerox copy of Job Estimate.
B3 22.06.06 Xerox copy of Job Card.
B4 25.10.06 Xerox copy of Workshop Gate Pass.
B5 02.11.06 Xerox copy of Old Parts List cum Gate Pass.
Exhibits of the 3rd opposite party B7 26.11.08 Xerox copy of Petition under RTI Act by the complainants counsel to the 3rd opposite party.
B8 12.12.08 Xerox copy of Reply from 3rd opposite party for the complainants counsel VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING MEMBER JUDICIAL INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka/ Vehicle