Karnataka

Belgaum

CC/806/2014

Sri. Suraj Baburao Pattan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nagshanti Motors Pvt.ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Jyoti Kadalaskar

19 Jan 2016

ORDER

(Order dictated by Shri. B.V.Gudli, President).

ORDER

The complainant has filed complaint U/s. 12 of C.P. Act. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the giving O.P. false and bogus number for the vehicle purchase from the O.P.

2) O.P. appeared and filed his version denied certain facts in the complaint.

          3) Both parties have filed their affidavits and some documents are produced by both the parties.

          4) We have heard the arguments of the counsel for O.P and have perused the records.

5) Now the point for our consideration is that,

6)  Whether the complainants has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and that the complainants is entitled to the reliefs sought?

7) Our finding on the point is partly in Negative, for the following reasons.

: REASONS :

7)      The complainant has filed the complaint alleging that he has purchased the vehicle from O.P. that is Hero Honda splendor plus on 3/4/2012 for a sum of Rs.53,560/- and also paid Rs.1,147/- towards S.P.L. + D.I.FF. and Rs. 162 under N.B. 065 dated 5/4/2012. The complainant further alleged that they O.Ps. assured the complainant for registering vehicle in the office of Regional Transport office at Belgaum and also insured the vehicle with I.C.I.C.I Lombard Motor Insurance under certificate No. 3005/15938247/10822/000 valid from 9/4/2012 till mid night 8/4/2013. The complainant further alleged that O.P. assured to registered the vehicle in two days, but even after complainant visited the office the opponent started delaying the matter and on one fined day the official of the opponent gave registration number KA-22 EG-2358. The complainant further alleged that believing the version of the opponent the complainant plied the said vehicle with the above said number and the vehicle met with the accident on 19/11/2013 and same is registered in Belgaum rural P.S. crime No. 285/2013 u/s. 279, 337 and 338 of I.P.C. and final report is also filed under number CC.231/2014 and pending before the IInd  J.M.F.C. Court Belgaum. The complainant further alleged that after the accident it was revealed that the said registration number given as KA-22 EG-2358 is bogus number and said number is of another vehicle which is standing in the name of one Jyothi. The complainant further alleged that the opponent Company has played fraud, induced and cheated the complainant and adopted unfair trade practice and is also inefficient rendering the service etc.,

8) The complainant further alleged that on 13/10/2014, the complainant got issued notice to opponent calling upon them to compensate to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and mental torture etc., The O.P. even after receipt of the notice on 20/1/2014 replied evasively instead complying to the said notice. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against O.P. for mental agony and mental torture and for giving false bogus registration number.

9) The opponent appeared and filed their objection and admitted that the said vehicle is purchased by the complainant from opponent and further contended and denied that the O.P. went on delaying the matter in respect of permanent registration number and further denied that said registration number KA-22 EG-2358 was given by the opponent.  The complainant did not approach the registering authority for getting registration of the said vehicle without registration complainant plied the vehicle on the road. The complainant did not get free services of the vehicle and also on repeated request made by the opponent the complainant did not produced the vehicle for registration before the opponent. The complainant to avoid police harassment used false registration number of another vehicle and said registration belonging to vehicle of one Jyothi. The complainant violated terms and conditions of the policy hence complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the opponent. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.

10) It is pertaining to note that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 3/4/2012 from the O.P. by paying necessary sum of Rs.53,560/-and from the date of purchase the complainant plied the vehicle without registration and also fail to get the vehicle for registration before the R.T.O., Belgaum and the complainant plied the vehicle with bogus number that is KA-22 EG-2358 which is standing in the name of one Smt. Jothi in the date of accident i.e, 19/11/2013. It is also to be noted that from the date of purchase of the motor vehicle the complainant did not use the free service provided by the opponent and did not bring the vehicle for the service with the opponent. This fact has been contended by the opponent in their objection and also in the affidavit. But on the other hand the complainant has failed to show that he has brought the vehicle with the O.P. for any service or for getting registration of his vehicle. As per the decision reported in 2015 (2) C.P.R. 803 (N.C) in between Naveen Verma v/s. Mrs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Sections 15,17, 19 and 21- Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Sections 39 and 43-Insurance. At the time of accident subject vehicle was being driven at a public place in violation of Section 39-Violation of Section 39 of the Act is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract which disentitles insured from getting insurance claim.

:IMPORTANT POINT:

Violation of Section 39 of the Act is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract which disentitles insured from getting insurance claim.

 The complainant has violated Sec. 39 of M.V. Act, as per decision violation of Sec. 39 of M.V. Act is fundamental breach of terms and conditions of policy contract which disentitles insured from getting insurance claim. As per Sec. 39 necessary for registration - 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 vehicle is registered. In the present case the complainant plied the vehicle on the public road without proper registration of the vehicle the complainant violated breach of the terms and conditions of policy of contract which disentitled insured from getting insurance claim. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, he fail to get to registration from concern authority and also plied the vehicle using bogus number. The complainant has not produced a single document to show that the O.P. officer has given the vehicle number as contended in the complaint, nor the complainant let evidence of the officer of O.P. who provided him the vehicle number that is KA-22 EG-2358. Hence the complainant is not entitled any compensation as claimed in the complaint.

12) The complainant has utterly failed to prove the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. Hence the following;

: ORDER :

The complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/- for filing false complaint against the opponent. The complainant is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund within one month from the date of this order. Failing which the complainant shall deposit Rs.2,000/- in additional to above said cost.

(Order dictated, corrected & then pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19^th day of January 2016).

 

          Member                    Member                    President.

 

 

gm*