CHENNAI: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has said the order of a district forum awarding compensation to the complainant is perfectly justified.

Passing orders on an appeal petition challenging the district forum's order, the Commission modified the order and awarded Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony instead of Rs.10,000. It also said the complainant was entitled to Rs. 20,000 as compensation, instead of Rs.50,000 ordered by the forum towards taxi hiring charges.

Dr. R. Jagan of Pollachi complained to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore, that he was a successful bidder in a tender and took delivery of a car from the Motor Vehicles Maintenance Department (MVMD), the Director of which was the first opposite party.

Though the vehicle was delivered, the Deputy Transport Commissioner (DTC), Chennai Zone (second opposite party), failed to hand them over to him, despite he having approached the authorities and even after a legal notice. Though he had a car, he could not use it from January 1995 as he did not have the two documents.

He was a doctor who had to travel a long distance everyday. Hence, he had to hire vehicles.

The MVMD submitted it was not negligent in responding to the complainant. The DTC was authorised to issue the RC book and TO form immediately. A duplicate RC was issued.

The non-availability of original RC and the process of getting a duplicate took time. The complainant was informed of this well in advance.

The DTC and the RTO, Chennai South (third opposite party), remained absent and were set ex-parte.

Holding there was deficiency in service, the Forum ordered the opposite parties to jointly and severally pay the doctor Rs. 50,000 towards taxi hiring charges, Rs.10,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 500 costs.

The appeal was filed challenging the order. The DTC and RTO, who chose to remain ex parte before the forum, were shown as appellants in the appeal.

In its order, the Commission Bench comprising Justice K. Sampath, president, and Pon. Gunasekaran, Member, said it was a matter of admission that though possession of the vehicle was handed over to the complainant, the two documents were not given to him.

He was sending repeated letters to the opposite parties. It was evident from an exhibit that the car had been used by the DTC without any valid RC and without changing the name of ownership for more than five years from 1987 to 1992.

Hence, it would have been easy for him to have issued a duplicate RC. "Unfortunately, the opposite parties were blaming one another and in the process the complainant suffered."

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail