Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvanathapuram

K R Udayabhanu, President and Smt Valsal Sarangadharan, Member

Regional Transport Officer and Another – Appellants

Versus

George Thattil – Respondent

Appeal No. 262 of 2007

Decided on 12.2.2008

 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 12 and 17 - Delay of one year in supply of RC particulars of a vehicle - District Forum holding appellant deficient in service awarded compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1,500/- as cost - Appeal - Contention that there was no proper evidence as to loss sustained by complainant - Complainant was insurance investigator and had mentioned in registered notice that claim was pending with insurance company for want of particulars - No reason to interfere - Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

K R Udayabhanu, President - The appellants are the opposite parties - RTO Trissur and the State of Kerala. The order appealed against is the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as cost.

2. It is the case of the complainant, who is an Insurance Investigator that he applied for the R C particulars of KL 7 - 5424 for submitting a report with respect to the claim by the owner of vehicle, entrusted by the Insurance Company. He remitted Rs. 50/- as fees on 09.08.2005. Till the date of complaint, he did not receive the RC particulars. He had sought for a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The opposite parties have filed a joint version admitting the application for the RC particulars. The delay is explained as follows: 4. The vehicle was initially registered with the registering authority at Ernakulam and subsequently the ownership of the vehicle was transferred in favour of the person living within the jurisdiction of additional registering authority, Thrissur. The particulars register was handed over to Kudumbasree Unit for data entry work. It is also mentioned that the office of the 1st opposite party was handed over to PWD and for about one year the office building was in the custody of PWD. In the meantime the office was functioning at the top floor of the civil station. The office records were not properly arranged. It is mentioned that subsequently on 07.08.2006 the RC particulars were sent to the complainant by registered post. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the affidavit of the complainant and the receipt of remittal of Rs. 50/- and the copy of the registered letter dated 27.1.2006. 6. It is contended by the appellant that there is no proper evidence as to loss sustained by the complainant. We find that there is a delay of exactly one year in furnishing the particulars. It is specifically mentioned in the registered notice that the claim is pending with the Insurance Company for want of the particulars for the report to be submitted by the complainant. The delay of one year, we find, has not been properly explained. The complainant who has filed proof affidavit was not cross - examined. No evidence was adduced at the instance of the opposite parties. It is only on 07.08.2006 after the filing of the complaint that the particulars were sent to the complainant from the RTO office. Evidently, there is deficiency in service. It cannot be believed that the documents for about one year were entrusted with the Kulumbasree unit without keeping a copy of the same. The delay as already mentioned is of one year. The same is indicative of the difficulties faced by the complainant. The amount ordered as compensation is only reasonable. We find that no interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed.