At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE DR. P.D. SHENOY
For the Petitioner: Rakesh Kakar, Advocate. For the Respondent: Nemo.
K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member:
1. This revision is directed against the order 8.11.2002 of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad dismissing appeal against the order dated 8.7.2002 of a District Forum whereby complaint was allowed with direction to the petitioner to refund amount of Rs. 1,54,000 with interest @ 18% p.a. from 10.3.2001 and pay Rs. 2,600 being the amount of insurance premium besides cost to the respondent.
2. Facts giving rise to this revision lie ,in narrow compass. Respondent/complainant purchased a Sitara three wheeled 510 D-7 seater passenger auto for Rs. 1,54,000 on 12.3.2001 from the petitioner/opposite party who had taken responsibility of registration thereof by the Road Transport Authority. It was alleged that the petitioner postponed the getting of the vehicle registered as assured. By the letter dated 13.10.2001, petitioner undertook to get the vehicle registered within two months and pay the instalments payable by the respondent to the Bank. On failure of petitioner to get the vehicle registered within this period the respondent filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner. Purchase of the vehicle was not disputed. However, it was alleged that petitioner had nothing to do with the registration of vehicle. It was further alleged that vehicles are now being registered by the Transport Authority. It was denied that there was any deficiency in service on part of petitioner or the respondent was entitled to the reliefs claimed. On scrutinising evidence the Fora below returned the finding that petitioner had undertaken to get the vehicle purchased by the respondent registered which it did not do.
3. Submission advanced by Mr. Rakesh Kakkar for petitioner is that the vehicle has been got registered with the Transport Authority by the petitioner on 5.5.2005 and repairs to the vehicle pursuant to the order passed by this Commission had been carried out on 14.2.2005 and delivery of vehicle thereafter taken by the respondent. Order dated 4.1.2005 passed by this Commission which has bearing, reads thus:
'The complainant (respondent before us) appearing in person along with his Counsel, states that he would hand over the vehicle to the petitioner, M/s. Kohinoor Auto Agencies, on or before 7th January, 2005. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the said vehicle would be repaired and would be made fully functional. He further says that as there is no ban in registering the said vehicle and the same would be registered if the complainant gives his signatures on registration form. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further says that the said vehicle would be fully repaired within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said vehicle.
List on 10.2.2005 for final hearing.'
4. Order dated 12.4.2005. notices the statement made by the Counsel for petitioner that the vehicle has been fully repaired. Order dated 24.10.2005 further notices the statement of petitioner’s Counsel that vehicle had since been registered with the Road Transport Authority and respondent had taken possession of the vehicle. He also pointed out that petitioner had deposited Rs. 1 lakh as directed by this Commission. Section 39 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 provides that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with this chapter and the certificate of registration has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner. Though the vehicle was sold on 12.3.2001 but it has been registered on 5.5.2005 after a delay of more than 4 years. It is pointed out on behalf of petitioner that the vehicle was being used by the respondent during this period and in support thereof attention is invited to the photo copies of job cards at pages 20 and 21. On inquiry, Mr. Kakkar, Adv. admitted that no affidavit by way of evidence was filed by the petitioner in regard to respondent’s using the vehicle during the aforesaid period. In absence of evidence to that effect, the two job cards are not of any help to the petitioner. Since the respondent in view of said Section 39 could not have legally plied the vehicle for want of registration during the said period, the petitioner cannot escape liability to compensate the respondent on that count. One may reasonably presume that respondent may have earned amount of Rs. 3,000 per month by plying the vehicle during the said period. In changed circumstances, the orders passed by Fora below deserve to be modified by ordering payment @ Rs. 3,000 per month for the aforesaid period of about four years and two months, totalling Rs. 1,50,000. Since the petitioner is stated to have paid two ins
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
talments of loan to the bank on behalf of respondent, it is entitled to adjustment thereof from the amount payable by it. 5. Accordingly, while allowing revision aforesaid orders passed by both the Fora below are set aside and petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 to the respondent minus amount of two instalments of loan paid to the Bank. Deposited amount of Rs. 1 lakh is released in favour of the respondent. Balance amount will be paid within four weeks by the respondent, No order as to costs. Revision Petition allowed.