REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM Vs. K.SHAMBHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the opposite party/Regional Transport Officer in CC.159/08 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant is under orders to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.2000/- as cost and with interest at 9% if the amount is not paid within one month.

(2.) The case of the complainant is that he owned an autorikshaw having city permit and filed a joint application with one Ayyappan for transfer of ownership and permit on 31/1/2008 and remitted Rs.250/- towards fee. A number of times the complainant visited the office of the opposite party and was asked to come again and again. All the papers relating to the autorikshaw was submitted. The officials also directed the complainant to remit Rs.500/- towards compounding fee. Subsequently the records were returned on 4/6/2008 on request. The vehicle was to be kept idle till 4/1/2008. Deficiency in service is alleged. A sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation is claimed.

(3.) The opposite party has admitted the receipt of joint application for transfer of permit and ownership and remittal Rs.350/- on 31/1/2008. At the personal hearing on 10/4/2008. It was stated that the vehicle was sold and delivered two months ago to Sri.Ayyappan. As per Sec.82 (2) of the MV Act the permit shall not be transferred except with the permission of the transferring authority that granted the permit. It was in the above circumstances a detailed enquirywas made through the AMVI as to the genuineness of the transaction. The AMVI has reported that the address of the purchaser recorded in the application is not genuine and it was revealed that in TC.29/994, Kulathinkara Veedu, Palkulangara, Thiruvananthapuram is mentioned as the purchasers address in the application for transfer of permit it was the family of the deceased Mohandas residing for the last 3 years. In the meantime, the complainant applied to cancel the sale agreement and return of the records. Rs.500/- was collected a compounding fee for violation of permit conditions. There is no deficiency in service.