D.O.F:05/07/2019
D.O.O:21/12/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.130/2019
Dated this, the 21th day of December 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G :MEMBER
Anil Kumar, S/o Sivan
Civil Police Officer,
C/o AR Camp, Near DPO Parakkatta,
Kudlu Village, RD Nagar P.O,
Kasaragod Taluk and District – 671124 : Complainant
(Adv: Mohanan Nambiar.M)
And
KVR Cars/Manager KVR Cars,
Anangoor, Vidyanagar P.O, Kasaragod,
Kasaragod Taluk and District 671123 : Opposite Party
(Adv: A. Balakrishnan Nair)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a new car by selling his old car bearing Registration No: KL-14 G 4589 Maruthi Zen, vehicle from Opposite Party. He exchanged his old car by adjusting Rs. 52,000/- for exchange of a new car. Sales papers issued to Opposite Party, written delivery receipt signed by Opposite Party issued to complainant, vehicle handed over on 29/03/2013 complainant believed that Opposite Party changed the R.C of the vehicle keeping his promise.
2. The complainant received notice from H’ble High court of Karnataka in MFA 1027/2017. Then he came to know that his old car sold to Opposite Party met with an accident on 19/10/2014 causing injury to one Lakshmana and on Dinesha. The injured filed petition for compensation and award was passed for Rs. 5,14,000/-. It is found the complainant ordered to pay the amount to the petitioners in the claim. The complainant did not receive any notice in the motor claim tribunal. It is learned that the purchases without the knowledge of the complainant filed a police case against the Manager KVR cars and other and the same is pending investigation. The complainant suffered mental agony due to deficiency in service. The complainant sent registered lawyer notice but Opposite Party sent a false reply. Complainant claims direction to Opposite Party to pay Rs. 20,11,000/- being the loss of complainant and Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony.
3. The Opposite Party filed written version Opposite Party admits complainant exchanged the vehicle with a new car branded a Star Maruthi car under exchange. The Opposite Party received lawyer notice proper reply is sent. As per section 50 of MV Act the transfer shall report RTO within 15 days of the sale. There is no compliance of section 50 of MV Act. The Opposite Party sold the vehicle to one Aboobaker Muliyar on 01/04/2013 as per agreement instituted to exchange the ownership of the vehicle in his name. Notice from the M.A.C.T Hassan was received to the complainant but did not attend complainant cannot put up claim the OP in crime No 495/2018 of Kasaragod Police station. But not charge sheeted and that Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1, one witness also examined Pw2 Ext A1 to A9 marked from his side. Ext A1 is delivery invoice 29/03/2013, Ext A2 cash receipt, Ext A3 is delivery receipt, Ext A4 is order dated 09/09/2016 of Motor Tribunal Hassan, Ext A5 is the enhancement petition, Ext A6 is copy of notice of H’ble High Court of Karnataka, Ext A7 copy of notice, Ext A8 copy of the reply, and Ext A9 is the FIR.
5. The complainant filed an IA 121/2020 amending the complaint for enhancing the claim to Rs. 25,11,500/-.
6. The Opposite Party did not adduced any evidence. Considering the rival contentions following points arised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service in the matter of not taking steps for changing ownership of the vehicle bearing Registration No: KL – 14 G 4589 from Opposite Party within statutory period.
- Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation thereof and if so for what reliefs?
7. Both issues discussed together for convinces it is the admitted case of both parties that Opposite Party sold a new car to the complainant in exchange of old car of the complainant. The complainant is a Grade ASI of police. Vehicle delivered to the Opposite Party on 29/03/2013. The Opposite Party in his version says the vehicle is sold one Aboobaker on 01/04/2013 then therefore it is statutory duty of Opposite Party to see that ownership of the vehicle changed from the name of complainant to the name of the purchaser of the old car. Opposite Party has no case that they have not received transfer form of the ownership of the vehicle from the complainant. But Opposite Party takes exemption by saying that complainant did not inform to RTO under section 50 of Kerala Motor Vehicle Act. The complainant deposing as Pw1 denied having notice from MACT from Hassan. He also denies the suggestion that he came to know the order Ext A4 then and there. In that order it is mentioned that claim is fake one. Claim of insurance amount false and the complainant did not file any appeal though the court found that RC owner conceived with the petitioner and claim amount enhanced. The complainant denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any loss and he did not engage any lawyer in the MACT.
8. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has finalized the RC ownership change of the old vehicle in the name of the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party admits to delivered the vehicle to one Aboobaker. It is the responsibility of the Opposite Party and purchaser Aboobaker to change R.C in the name of Aboobaker. The Opposite Party is very negligent in services having accepted delivery of the vehicle, but did not change the owner ship of the vehicle in time, thus there is serious deficiency in service in this regard.
9. Regarding the claim relating to the loss suffered due to liability under MACT order Ext A4. MACT found that a fraud has been played by the petitioner in the MACT and the owner herein, complainant inspite of finding against him did not taken the matter in appeal and having suffered the order is not entitled to any amount of compensation relating to Ext A4 order of the MACT. But still in case the MACT award is executed against the complainant and on discharge of the amount due complainant is at liberty to pay and recover the account from the Opposite Party as and when payment is made by the complainant to the petitioner in the Ext A4 order. The complainant has no case that he has discharged the liability to the petitioners in the Ext A4 MACT order yet.
In the result the complaint is allowed in part, complainant claims Rs.25,11,500 /- being the amount of loss to the complainant for which absolutely no evidence to prove that he suffered loss as per Ext A4 order not complied yet. As and when Ext A4 order is complied the complainant at liberty to pay and recover the amount paid there in from the Opposite party.
The complainant claims Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony deficiency in service. The amount claimed is without valid and justifiable reasons. But since Opposite party failed to take steps to change of the RC of the old vehicle in time the liability to pay compensation to the victims of the road accident in fixed upon the complainant and therefore complainant having suffered an order by the MACT. Thus he is entitled to compensation. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation. And also pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Delivery invoice Dt: 29/03/2013.
A2- Cash receipt .
A3- Delivery receipt.
A4- Order Dt: 09/09/2016 Motor Tribunal Hassan.
A5- Enhancement Petition.
A6- Copy of notice of H’ble High court of Karnataka.
A7- Lawyer Notice.
A8- Copy of reply.
A9- FIR
Witness Examined
Pw1- Anilkumar. S
Pw2- Babu.K
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
