AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HEARD Mr. Sangram Das, the learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.R. Das, the learned Counsel for the complainant. The present appeal is against the order of the District Forum, Balasore directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant observing that the appellant committed deficiency in service in not giving the R.C. Book in respect of the vehicle ORB-1939 which was admittedly put to auction and was purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs. 1,21,101/- and the bid was knocked down in his favour on 4.1.1996.
MR. Sangram Das advanced two points in support of his argument : (a) The vehicle was purchased by the complainant for use for commercial purpose. (b) Secondly he took delivery of the vehicle with full knowledge that the R.C. Book was not available with the appellant at that particular point of time and that apart thirdly it was urged that since the R.C. Book was with the R.T.O. the same could be delivered when received from the R.T.O. So far the use of the vehicle for commercial purpose is concerned no doubt the complainant has not mentioned anything that he has purchased the vehicle for earning his livelihood. But the Department has also not come forward with a case or proved the case that in fact the complainant was plying the vehicle for commercial purpose. That apart we may observe that we have taken a view that in such matters of transaction of sale and purchase, question of commercial purpose would not be relevant for the simple reason that the complainant was not purchasing the vehicle to resale the same. The purchase and resale of the vehicle is a question of fact. Therefore, we would not accept the contention of Mr. Das that the complainant purchased it for the commercial purpose.
So far as the second point for deficiency of service is concerned, on hearing the Counsel, we are satisfied that when the department put the vehicle to auction it was incumbent on their part to hand over the document of title of the vehicle. Needless to point out in the absence of R.C. Book it would be unwise to ply a vehicle since it would amount violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. That apart even otherwise also assuming for the sake of argument there was no obligation on the part of the department to have the R.C. Book at that time and the same was with the R.T.O., yet it was for them when the vehicle was auctioned to inform the complainant that it would not be so available even within a reasonable time. So far as the 3rd point is concerned, the R.C. Book was no doubt obtained from the R.T.O. It only pursuant to the order of this Commission and that took only after dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Government against the order of the R.T.O. under the Taxation Act. Be that as it may, the complaint was filed on 23.7.1997 and the R.C. Book was delivered long after that, we do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. The order be complied within a period of one month from the date of communication of the order. Appeal dismissed.