Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow

Bhanwar Singh, President & Raghunath Prasad, Member

S P Shrivastava & Anr – Appellant

Versus

Vinod Kumar Singh & Anr – Respondents

Appeal No. 2906 of 2002 with Appeal Nos. 2050 & 2025 of 2002

Decided on 13-02-2009

 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Deficiency in service - Complainant purchased a vehicle and dealer mentioned DS/Chassis Number as 56670 in sale letter whereas correct Chassis No. was 56770 - Officials of RTO instead of checking themselves the correct Chassis No. on vehicle took it from sale letter and recorded it in registration certificate of vehicle - Police in checking seized vehicle suspecting it to be a stolen one, arrested driver of Complainant who remained in jail for 15 days before he came out on bail - Vehicle remained in police custody for 25 days - District Forum held dealer and two officials of ARTO guilty of deficiency in service and awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- in ratio of Rs. 30,000/- to be paid by dealer and Rs. 10,000/ - to be paid by two officials or ARTO - Appeal by both sides - deficiency in service of dealer and officials of ARTO had fatal consequences for Complainant and his driver - Compensation deserved to be enhanced and enhanced to Rs. One lakh to be paid in ratio of 60:40 with interest - Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to driver of Complainant - Police also did not act in complete bona fides and senior police officer to take necessary steps.

Result: Appeal disposed of.

Important Points

Mentioning a wrong Chassis No. in sale letter by dealer and in registration certificate by ARTO official based on information contained in sale letter amount to deficiency in service on the part of both dealer and officials of ARTO.

Judgement (Oral)

Bhanwar Singh, President - All the three appeals having arisen out of one and the same judgment dated 22.07.2002 of the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh, are taken up together for decision.

2. Heard Shri K N Shukla learned counsel for M/s Deep Automobiles and Shri S K Sharma learned counsel for the Complainant. 3. Shri Vinod Kumar Singh and his driver happened to be victim of circumstances. The driver of the vehicle in question landed in jail due to serious mistake and error of M/s Deep Automobiles and also that of the officials of ARTO Azamgarh. 4. Shortly stated, Shri Vinod Kumar Singh had purchased on 31.01.1994 a Mahindra Jeep Model CDR650 DI 2WTST from M/s Deep Automobiles, Harbanshpur, Azamgarh. A sale letter was issued on the same day in which DS/Chassis number of the jeep was mentioned wrongly as 56670, although its correct Number was 56770. This mistake was attributed to the personnel of M/s Deep Automobiles. The owner of the vehicle applied for its registration Number and the officials of ARTO Azamgarh without taking notice of the specimen of DS/Chassis Number, which they procured, incorporated the same wrong number 56670 as mentioned in the sale letter. Although it might have been an inadvertent error on the part of M/s Deep Automobiles, as also the office of ARTO, yet its consequences were fatal for Shri Vinod Kumar Singh and his driver Shri Rama Shanker, who landed in jail when the police checked the vehicle and noticed that they were in custody of a vehicle bearing DS/Chassis Number 56770 with the registration certificate of a different vehicle i.e. 56670 the recording of one digit '6' instead of '7' created problems and the police believed that the vehicle was a stolen one and relying upon their misplaced belief they had arrested the driver and put him behind the bar. A case was registered under Section 41/411 by the police of Police Station, Mehnagar, District Azamgarh. The driver remained in judicial custody for about 15 days. The vehicle too was seized by the police and the seizure continued for 23 days and it could be released only after Shri Vinod Kumar Singh succeeded in getting the error rectified and correct number of chassis incorporated in the registration certificate. It was an irony of fate. Alas! The question is as to whether the mistake/error on the part of M/s Deep Automobiles and the officials of the ARTO would fall within the ambit of deficiency in service? 5. The answer must figure in affirmative for the reason that the error though slight in nature created a complicated situation leading the driver of the vehicle into jail. It was the reckless conduct of the Automobile dealer and his servants, which had contributed to the miseries of the owner and the driver. The officials of M/s Deep Automobiles were under an obligation to mention the correct number of the chassis in the sale letter and in order to secure accuracy some full proof system must have been evolved and followed. To clarify at least two persons must be there to check and verify as to whether correct number of the DS/Chassis of a vehicle sold had been mentioned or not. Here is the question as to whether the error can be treated as bona fide or mala fide but the fact remains that the kind of error that had erupted, resulted in a shocking jail term of 15 days for the driver. The owner and the driver, both might have lost the charm and enthusiasm of owning and driving a new vehicle. Certainly, they would have been humiliated in the eyes of those with whom they were familiarized and they must have definitely fallen in the estimation of all relations and family friends. A wrong recording in a document may be mistake - bona fide or mala fide. However, if an error is a lapse or 'deficiency' while rendering service, it is actionable as 'deficiency in service'. 6. The mistake on the part of the officials of the ARTO was in no way less dangerous. The concerned officials were under an obligation to take specimen of the DS/ Chassis Number and write the same in the registration certificate but they failed in discharge their duties and instead of applying their mind to record the accurate DS/Chassis Number of the vehicle they towed the same line as followed by M/s Deep Automobiles and mentioned the wrong DS/Chassis Number in the registration certificate, the consequences of which were fatal as discussed above. 7. Since the driver of the vehicle was in jail as indicated earlier and the vehicle was in police custody for a considerable time, both Shri Vinod Kumar Singh and his driver are entitled to claim compensation from M/s Deep Automobiles as well as from the Appellants of Appeal No. 2906/02 namely Shri S P Shrivastava, and Shri Balai Prasad Misra, both officials of the ARTO Azamgarh. 8. The District Consumer Forum has awarded a sum of Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the Complainant Vinod Kumar Singh. Out of this amount, liability of Rs. 10,000/- has been fastened upon ARTO and Reserve Inspector of the two Appellants of Appeal No. 2906/02 while the balance of Rs. 30,000/- is payable by M/s Deep Automobiles. 9. Keeping in view the humiliation of the driver and a dent to the reputation of the owner with his vehicle being in police custody for 23 days and also the fact that there was loss of earning of livelihood for such a long period, we are of the view that the appeal of the owner Shri Vinod Kumar Singh deserves to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, we enhance the compensation from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-, the liability of which will be shared in 60-40 ratio. To be specific, a sum of Rs. 60,000/- will to be paid by M/s Deep Automobiles and Rs. 40,000/- by the two officials of the ARTO, Azamgarh. Out of this total sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall be paid to the driver Shri Rama Shanker, who being branded as a criminal was the victim of this tragedy; the balance shall be payable to Shri Vinod Kumar Singh. The rate of interest awarded by the Forum below is reasonable and justifiable. The aforesaid amount of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- shall carry the interest from the date of filing the complaint until the payment is made. The liability of interest will be in the ratio as mentioned above. In the result, all the three appeals are decided in the above terms. However, before we part with the issue, we would like to observe that the police of the concerned police station must not have been so concerned and sensitive as to implicate the driver in a theft case on a mere suspicion. Technically, the way the police personnel had thought of, might have been justifiable but it was not an 'arithmetical crime' to see the Registration Certificate bearing a difference of one digit in the chassis number and book the driver for the crime of theft. We don't think the kind of the situation amounted to the commission of theft. 11. Obviously, neither there was any dishonest intention of the driver nor he had taken the vehicle out of the owner's possession without the latter's consent. Thus, the definition of theft was miles away from the inconsistent situation so seriously taken note of by the police. The police in the instant case did not apply their mind. Their interrogation and investigation must not have taken more than a few minutes to learn that it might be a case of inadvertent error, but it appears that they proceeded blindfold on the technical ground of their being one digit difference in the recording of the Chassis Number in the Registration Certificate. Had the police used their reason and applied their mind sincerely to the typical anomaly, the innocent driver would have escaped the 15 days' jail term - which must have been full of pains and agony. We don't intend imposition of a punishment upon the erring police officials nor will it retrieve the owner and driver of the loss of their reputation; but we would ask the Senior Police Officers of the state to debate upon the issue and send such circulars to all the police stations across in the state so as to avoid taking such a harsh action in the cases where with the application of their mind, a rational decision can prevail and innocent people of the public are not unnecessarily harassed or victimized. 12. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, UP for such action as may be deemed necessary. Appeals disposed of