R JAGAN Vs. MOTOR VEHICLES MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner purchased an Ambassador car in an auction held by the respondents - the Director, Motor Vehicle Maintenance Department and others. He purchased the said vehicle on 7.9.1994. The possession of the vehicle was delivered on 28.10.1994 after receipt of full sum, namely, Rs. 25,999. However, the R.C. Book and the T.O. Form were not delivered to him for reasons best known to the opposite parties. The contention of the complainant is that for making the car roadworthy, which was an Ambassador car, he was required to spend more than a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. As the necessary documents were not handed over to him, despite repeated letters and visits to the office of the respondents on various occasions, he was required to file O.P. No. 151 of 1995 before the District Forum, Coimbatore.

(2.) The District Forum considered the fact that despite various requests the opposite parties failed to issue the R.C. Book, but, immediately after filing of the complaint in April, 1995, they issued the registration certificate in June, 1995. The District Forum also noted that the complainant was required to incur expenses towards hiring of taxis for carrying out his work. For this deficiency in service by the opposite parties the District Forum directed the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 for damages and Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 5,000 as costs of litigation.

(3.) Against that order, the opposite party preferred Appeal No. 93 of 2000 before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the finding that the R.C. Book and the T.O. Form were not given to the complainant and that he was sending repeated letters to the opposite parties for getting the same. This aspect is discussed by the State Commission in paragraph 11 of its judgment. The State Commission also noted that the dilly-dallying attitude of the opposite parties provoked the complainant to issue legal notice on 7.1.1995 to the opposite parties. The State Commission also noted from Exhibit A-16 that it was proved that the car which was auctioned and purchased by the complainant was used by the opposite party No. 2, namely, the Deputy Transport Commissioner, for more than 5 years, and, therefore, it would have been easily possible for the opposite party No. 2 to have issued the duplicate R.C. Book, and, unfortunately, the opposite parties were blaming one another and in the process the complainant suffered.