Date of filing : 08-03-2011
Date of order : 15-06-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 52/2011
Dated this, the 15th day of June 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Sabu.K.Baby,
S/o.Baby, Korattiyil House, } Complainant
Kadumeni.Po. Hosdurg Taluk.
(Adv.Johney Scaria, Hosdurg)
Ajeesh.T.S, } Opposite party
S/o.thankappan, Hillside,
Kattayikonam, Kazhakuttam,
Thiruvananthapuram. 695582.
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant Sri. Sabu K.Baby is that he purchased an “EICHER” mini tourist bus bearing Reg.No.KL-01-3585 from the opposite party for a sum of `5,95,000/- and the entire sale price amount was given to the opposite party and possession of the vehicle was given to the complainant. At the time of sale of the vehicle the opposite party made to believe the complainant that the above vehicle is validly insured for the period of 18-02-2010 to 17-02-2011 and a copy of cover note issued by Cholamandalam General Insurance Company indicating the above dates. It was also handed over to the complainant along with other vehicular documents on the very same date of agreement. At the time of change of registration only complainant came to know that the insurance cover note handed over to him by the opposite party was a fabricated one and the vehicle was running without valid insurance. Due to the misrepresentation of opposite party, the complainant suffered mental agony and loss of `1,66,078/-. Hence the complaint for necessary redressal.
2. Opposite party remained absent inspite of receipt of notice sent by registered post. The opposite party had to be set exparte.
3. Complainant filed an affidavit in support of his complaint and Exts A1 to A5 marked. Heard the counsel for complainant. Documents perused. We find the insurance cover note issued by Cholamandalam General Insurance Company which is marked as Ext.A1 is valid up to 31st May 2010 and date of sale was 19-5-2010. Complainant purchased the vehicle based on the misrepresentation that the vehicle is validly insured for the period from 18-02-2010 to 17-02-2011. Complainant purchased the above vehicle by the aid of a Private Finance Company, as a source of income for his livelihood. But when he approached RTO for the change of registration of the vehicle, then only he came to know that the insurance cover note given by the opposite party was a fabricated document and the vehicle was running without valid insurance. The vehicle was insured only for 3 months from 18-02-2010. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on expiry of the policy. Subsequently the complainant obtained insurance certificate from National Insurance Company. The fraudulent act reveals the ulterior motive on the part of opposite party which is tantamounts to contradicting all cannons of trade practice. Such an act seems to be irregular immoderate and irresponsible. The opposite party ought not to have mislead the complainant for the purchase of his vehicle. In order to preserve the right of the complainant, opposite party should be penalized. Complainant constrained to pay `13,650/- for obtaining an insurance certificate from 20-11-2010 to 19-11-2011.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay a sum of `13,650/- together with compensation of `25,000/- and cost of `3,000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which opposite party shall be directed to pay interest @ 12% per annum for `13,650/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Insurance Cover Note.
A2. Photocopy of RC
A3. Photocopy of RC
A4. Photocopy of Insurance Certificate.
A5. Copy of the contract carriage permit
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
