Car owner wins Rs 5,000 payout as RTO allots same registration number to another vehicle

Same number, different vehicles

• According to the complaint, the complainant purchased a 2012 Maruti Swift Dzire as its third owner and applied for transfer of the registration certificate.
• However, during the process, he discovered that the registration number had already been allotted in 2009 to a different goods carrier vehicle.
• Despite repeated requests to rectify the error by transferring the registration certificate or issuing a fresh one, the transport authorities allegedly delayed the matter and ultimately refused to act, compelling him to approach the consumer commission.
• The complainant submitted that he served a legal notice upon the opposite parties but in vain.
• Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant moved the consumer commission.
• The opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex parte.

Evidence unchallenged: Forum

The commission noted that the complainant’s allegations and documentary evidence remained unrebutted and unchallenged, leading it to conclude that the transport authorities either admitted the claim or had no defence to offer.

The forum held that it was fully convinced with the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant.

The commission partly allowed the complaint. It directed the transport department to issue a new registration number for the complainant’s vehicle, observing that the number had already been assigned to another vehicle.

“The opposite parties are directed to issue correct registration number of the vehicle in question to the complainant instead of registration certificate number….as the same had already been issued,” the order read.

It further ordered the opposite parties, including the regional transport officer, Ferozepur, the regional transport officer, Moga, the department of transport, and the state transport commissioner, Punjab, to pay Rs 5,000 as consolidated compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

“The opposite parties shall comply with this order within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order,” the commission concluded.

Why judgment matters

The ruling is crucial as it means that government authorities can be held accountable under consumer law for administrative errors that cause hardship to citizens.

By directing the transport department to issue a fresh registration number after it mistakenly allotted the same registration number to two different vehicles, the commission reaffirmed that public authorities have a duty to maintain accurate records and provide efficient services.

The order also highlights that when government departments fail to contest consumer complaints, unrebutted evidence can be sufficient to establish deficiency in service.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh contact: 0172-2700183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.

Postal dept ordered to pay Rs 20k

In another case, the District Consumer Commission in Tamil Nadu’s Kanniyakumari has ordered the Superintendent of Postal Service to pay Rs 20,000 to a woman in compensation for non-payment of her matured rural postal life insurance amount due to an administrative error where two different customers were assigned the same savings account number.

A bench of president Y Gladstone Blessed Tagore and member S Nagendran was dealing with the plea of a woman who filed a complaint against the postal department for non-payment of her Rs 1 lakh matured Rural Postal Life Insurance amount.

“It is surprising and shocking how the postal authorities gave the same account number for two different customers, the complainant and one Valarmathi. Giving the same account number to the complainant and to one Valarmathi is the fault of the Postal Department. The head of the District Postal Authority is a party in this case,” the commission said on May 27.