Haryana

Kaithal

114/20

Sushil Bushan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dev Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rashmi Singh Dhull

29 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.114/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 06.03.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:29.03.2023.

Sushil Bhushan son of Sh. Satpal, resident of House No.67/1, Cheeka, near Primary School, Tehsil Guhla, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Dev Automobiles Pehowa Road, Cheeka, District Kaithal, through its Proprietor/Partner.
2. Magma HDI General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO-37, Ist Floor Sector-14, Gurgram-122001 Haryana, through its Branch Manager (Policy No.P002010002/4107/100786.
3. S.D.M. Guhla/Registration Authority, through S.D.M. Guhla. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Rashmi Singh Dhull, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. S.S.Vohra, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.

                Sh. C.L.Uppal, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

                Respondent No.3 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Sushil Bhushan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Marka Sonalika Tractor bearing registration No.HR-09F-9331 from the OP No.1 and got insured the same with the OP No.2 vide policy No.P002010002/4107/100786 dt. 18.04.2019 after paying the premium of Rs.13,047/-.  It is further alleged that on 01.07.2019 the complainant met with an accident with motor-cycle.  The complainant repaired his tractor from OP No.1.  The cost of repair was Rs.1,13,131/- of spare parts and Rs.15,150/- as cost of labour.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP No.2 and submitted all the necessary documents but then OP No.2 repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 09.09.2019.  The said repudiation of claim is stated to be wrong and illegal.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 22.01.2021 passed by this Commission.  OPs No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their written statements separately.  OP No.1 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission.  The true facts are that after purchase of tractor in question by the complainant from the answering OP, all the relevant documents/form were submitted by the answering OPs in the office of Registering Authority (MV) Guhla.  It is also relevant to mention here that the answering Op applied for renewal of Trade Certificate on 27.05.2019 to State Transport Department but due to some technical online/offline problem, Trade Certificate of answering Op No.1 was renewed on 08.07.2019 which was also submitted in the office of State Transport Department Haryana Guhla, HR on 08.07.2019 for Registration Certificate of the above-said tractor.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             OP No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction; cause of action; locus-standi; that after receiving intimation from the complainant, the answering OP sent letter dt. 09.09.2019 that at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle was not registered accordance with Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act.  According to Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1998  that no person shall drive any motor vehicle and no owner of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit the vehicle to be driven in any public place or in any other place unless the vehicle is registered in accordance with the chapter and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled and the vehicle carries a registration mark displayed in the prescribed manner.  Thus, as the vehicle, at the time of alleged accident, was being used in public place in violation of Section 39 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1, OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Annexure-R2 to Annexure-R4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had purchased the vehicle Marka Sonalika Tractor bearing registration No.HR-09F-9331 from the OP No.1 and got insured the same with the OP No.2 vide policy No.P002010002/4107/100786 dt. 18.04.2019 after paying the premium of Rs.13,047/-.  It is further argued that on 01.07.2019 the complainant met with an accident with motor-cycle.  It has been further argued that the complainant repaired his tractor from OP No.1 and incurred the amount of Rs.1,29,011/- on its repair.  The complainant got lodged the claim with the OP No.2 and submitted all the necessary documents but then OP No.2 repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dt. 09.09.2019.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention towards the documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C3 and copy of letter dt. 04.12.2013 written by Principal Secretary to Govt. Haryana, Transport Department to Transport Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh which is Mark-A on the file.  There is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and so, prayed for acceptance of complaint.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that after purchase of tractor in question by the complainant from the OP, all the relevant documents/form were submitted by the OP in the office of Registering Authority (MV) Guhla.  It has been further argued that Op applied for Registration Certificate on 27.05.2019 to State Transport Department as per Annexure-R2 but due to some technical online/offline problem, Registration Certificate of No.1 was issued on 08.07.2019 as per Annexure-R3 which was also submitted in the office of State Transport Department Haryana Guhla, HR on 08.07.2019 for Registration Certificate of the above-said tractor.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and deficiency is on the part of OPs No.2 & 3. 

9.             Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 argued that after receiving intimation from the complainant, the OP sent letter dt. 09.09.2019 that at the time of alleged accident, the vehicle was not registered accordance with Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act.  Ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has placed reliance upon the case law titled as Narinder Singh Vs. NIA, 2014 ACJ 2421 (Hon’ble Supreme Court).    

10.            We have perused all the record available on the file.  Annexure-C1 is copy of invoice dt. 17.04.2019 as per Annexure-C1 vide which the complainant had purchased the tractor in question from Op No.1 for the sum of Rs.4,99,000/- and temporary number was valid upto 16.05.2019.  Annexure-C2 is copy of insurance policy and Annexure-C3 is repudiation letter dt. 09.09.2019.  It is clear that the OP No.1-dealer had to apply for permanent registration number within one month from issuance of temporary registration number i.e. 17.04.2019 to 16.05.2019 but the Op No.1 had applied for permanent registration number on 27.05.2019 i.e. after the period of one month of validity of temporary registration number.  As per detailed terms and conditions mentioned at Sr.No.5 in letter dt. 04.12.2013, Mark-A, relevant para of which 5.4, 5.6 and 5.8, mentioned as below:-

        “5.4   The dealer shall ensure that the purchaser/applicant has furnished true and correct particulars in the application for the registration of the vehicle and there is no reason for the refusal of the registration of the vehicle.

        5.6    The dealer shall be fully responsible for the authenticity of all the relevant papers including Certificate of Inspection.

        5.8    The dealer shall indemnify, defend and hold the State Government including its officers and employees harmless against any and all proceedings, actions and third party claims for loss, damage and expense of whatever kind and nature arising out of this work.  The dealer shall fully indemnify and defend the State Government including its officers, employees from and against any and all loss and damages arising out of or with respect to failure of the dealer to comply with Applicable Laws, rules and regulations.”

                So, in view of terms and conditions mentioned above, it is clear that the dealer-OP No.1 is fully responsible for loss, damage and expense of whatever kind and nature arising out of this work and the dealer shall fully indemnify and defend the State Govt. as mentioned above.  The OP No.1 has tried to shift his responsibility upon the OPs No.2 & 3.  There is no document on the file which could prove that the OP No.1 had applied within the period of validation of temporary registration number.  Hence, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.  The complainant has produced on file repair bills dt. 03.08.2019 as per Annexure-C4 amounting to Rs.1,13,861/- and Annexure-C5 amounting to R.15,150/-, so, the complainant is entitled for the total amount of Rs.1,29,011/- (Rs.1,13,861/-+Rs.15,150/-).

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the OP No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.1,29,011/- to the complainant and to pay  Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within 45 days.  However, it is made clear that if the OP No.1 is failed to comply with the order within stipulated period, then the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay the interest @ 6% p.a. on the awarded amount of Rs.1,29,011/- from the date of order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted against OP No.1 accordingly and dismissed against OPs No.2 & 3.

12.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.1 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:29.03.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.