GAUTAM AUTO Vs. KIRAN PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Kiran Prabha, complainant for short, purchased one Bajaj Super Scooter from an authorised dealer of M/s. Bajaj Automobiles Ltd. on 16.10.1989. At that time the dealer was M/s New United Motors. During the pendency of these proceedings the management was taken over by M/s Gautam Auto Ltd. and they were duly brought on record. According to the complainant she was handed over receipt No.489909 issued by Registering Authority showing the registration number of the scooter No.3316. The complainant submitted the said receipt and received registration book. After some time she discovered that the engine number and chassis number were not correctly given in the registration book. She approached the dealer and having failed to get the correction made a complaint before D. F.-II against the manufacturer and the said dealer. The plea of the opp. parties was that the mistake was pointed out to the Registering Authority but they failed to rectify the mistake. The D. F. impleaded. the Registering Authority but the impleaded Authority failed to appear in spite of service and it was, therefore, proceeded exparte.

(2.) The D. F. held that the scooter sold to the complainant was not a second hand scooter but it was a new scooter received from the manufacturer only three days prior to the date of delivery. It was further held that the mistake in giving the registration number, engine number and chassis number appeared to have occurred in the office of the Registering Authority. The opp. parties including the Registering Authority having failed to carry out the correction, the complaint was allowed with a direction that the opp. parties would carry out the correction and pay Rs.5,000/jointly and severally by way of compensation to the complainant. Against the order dated 14.5.1993 passed by the D. F. the manufacturer and the dealer preferred appeal, which was registered as appeal No. A-340/93. The Registering Authority failed to appear in the appeal and was, therefore, proceeded ex-parte. By order-dated 2.5.1994, this Commission partly accepted the appeal and set aside the order insofar as the manufacturer and the dealer are concerned. The order against the Registering Authority was, however, affirmed.

(3.) The Registering Authority, the correct description of which is Motor Licensing Officer (West Zone), Directorate of Transport made an application dated 21.11.1995 for setting aside the ex-parte final order dated 2.5.1994 passed by this Commission. The said application was allowed by our detailed order dated 9.8.1996 in application registered as A-599/95.