CC Filed on 26.11.2009<br /> Disposed on 16.06.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 16th day of June 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 190/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. T. Muniraju,<br /> S/o. late Thimmarayappa,<br /> Aged about 25 years,<br /> R/o. Vibhuthipura,<br /> Keelukote Extension,<br /> Antharagange Road,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. L. Nagaraj) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Ramegowda,<br /> Proprietor,<br /> Srinivasa Motors,<br /> Authorised Dealer,<br /> For TVS Motors,<br /> Balaji Theater Circle,<br /> Bangalore Main Road,<br /> Malur – 563 130.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.V. Shankarappa & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to complainant with costs and interest etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts relevant for the disposal of this case may be stated as follows:-<br /> That OP is an authorized dealer for TVS two wheelers, running his business in the name and style “SRINIVASA MOTORS” at Malur in Kolar District. The complainant approached the OP for purchase of a TVS Flame Motor Cycle. According to complainant the total price of the Motor Cycle was Rs.46,425/- as per the invoice dated 07.03.2009 issued by OP including temporary registration charge and expenses for obtaining insurance coverage. It is alleged by complainant that OP was under an obligation to obtain temporary registration and insurance coverage for the said motorcycle before its delivery. The OP has contended that the total price of the Motor Cycle was Rs.54,750/- but not Rs.46,425/- as alleged by complainant. Further he contended that he had not undertaken to obtain insurance coverage before delivery of the motorcycle. <br /> <br /> The complainant has alleged that on down payment of Rs.25,000/- the OP had agreed to deliver the motor cycle and it was agreed that the balance should be paid in monthly installments of Rs.3,360/-. It is admitted that the complainant paid Rs.23,500/- on 27.03.2009 and another Rs.1,500/- on 31.03.2009 and another Rs.3,360/- on 31.08.2009 to OP and the OP had issued receipts for these payments. The OP contended that the balance consideration was agreed to be paid within a week or two by complainant and there was no agreement for receiving the balance consideration by installments as alleged by complainant and that complainant failed to pay the balance consideration as agreed. The complainant obtained delivery of the motorcycle. According to complainant it was on 27.03.2009 but according to OP the delivery was on 31.03.2009. <br /> <br /> In fact the motorcycle was not registered before competent authority and it was not insured before its delivery. In spite of it the complainant was riding it subsequent to its purchase. On 25.04.2009 at about 10.45 AM when complainant was riding this motorcycle on Antharagange Road near R.L. Jalappa Hospital, the said motorcycle dashed against one Lakshmidevamma and she sustained injuries and a case in Crime No.35/2009 was registered for offences Under Sections 279 & 337 IPC at Traffic Police Station, Kolar. Later the injured Lakshmidevamma filed in December-2009, M.V.C. No. 8764/2009 before the MACT at Bangalore against the complainant and one M/s. Sharavana TVS, Kolar claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging that she sustained grievous injuries in the accident. <br /> <br /> On the basis of Sale Certificate dated: 25.04.2009 issued by M/s. Sharavana TVS, Kolar, in respect of this motorcycle Temporary Registration was effected on the same day i.e. on 25.04.2009 which was valid for one month. The said motor cycle was also insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, KGF Branch, for the period from 29.04.2009 to 28.04.2010 in the name of complainant by paying total premium of Rs.1,280/-. <br /> <br /> It was alleged in the complaint that if the motorcycle was insured before its delivery, the compensation payable to third party if any would have been paid by Insurance Company and the complainant need not had to bear that burden of it. Further it is alleged that contrary to the agreement and obligation, the OP delivered the motor cycle without getting temporary registration and insurance for the said vehicle. Therefore the complainant claims compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The OP filed his version. The parties filed affidavits and documents. The complainant also filed the affidavit of one witness in support of his case. <br /> <br /> 4. We heard the learned counsel for parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration.<br /> <br /> Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that the OP had<br /> agreed to effect temporary registration and insurance<br /> for the Motor Cycle before its delivery?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: If Point No.1 is held in Affirmative, to which <br /> reliefs the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.3: What Order?<br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:-<br /> Point No.1 & 2: The effect of the pleadings of complainant is that OP.1 had agreed to effect temporary registration and insurance for the motorcycle before its delivery. The OP has denied this fact. There is no documentary evidence to prove this allegation made by the complainant. He stated that he obtained invoice dated 07.03.2009 from OP for Rs.46,425/- which included the charges for temporary registration and insurance. But the said invoice does not show that it included the charges for temporary registration and insurance. This invoice is issued by one Sarvana Enterprises authorized dealers for TVS two wheelers, Kolar in favour of OP.1. In this invoice Rs.46,425/- is shown as value of motorcycle. OP claims that he is also an authorized dealer for TVS two wheelers doing business at Malur. OP had obtained this two wheeler from another authorized dealer for Rs.46,425/-. It is natural to expect that OP.1 would sell it for higher price to the customer than the price for which he obtained it. OP has contended that the agreed price was Rs.54,750/-. It appears the complainant has not obtained any invoice from OP. Therefore the invoice dated 07.03.2009 issued by Sarvana Enterprises does not improve the case of complainant to prove that the amount of Rs.46,425/- agreed included temporary registration charges and insurance charges. It cannot be expected that OP would spend from his pocket for registration and insurance charges. Therefore if the registration and insurance charges were included with the value of motorcycle it should have been more than Rs.46,425/-. For the above said reason the oral evidence of complainant and his witness that the value of motorcycle including temporary registration charges and insurance charge was Rs.46,425/- cannot be believed. <br /> <br /> The Learned Counsel for complainant relied upon Rule 42 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 which prescribes that no dealer shall deliver a motor vehicle to a purchaser without registration, whether temporary or permanent. It can be said that this Rule prescribes a statutory duty on the dealer to get a motor vehicle registered before its delivery to a purchaser. The contravention of it is punishable under section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, which prescribes fine which may extend to Rs.100/- for first offence and fine which may extend to Rs.200/- for any second and subsequent offence. <br /> <br /> Even if a dealer delivers a motor vehicle without registration, that does not authorize the owner of the vehicle to drive the said vehicle on any public place. Section 39 of the said Act prescribes that no person shall drive any motor vehicle in any public place without there being valid registration certificate. The use of motor vehicle without registration is punishable under section 192 of the said Act. <br /> <br /> Regarding insurance there is no statutory obligation on the part of dealer to get the vehicle insured before its delivery to a purchaser. On the other hand section 146 of the said Act prescribes that no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or allow any person to use a motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of chapter XI. Driving uninsured motor vehicle is an offence punishable under sec 196 of the said Act. <br /> <br /> The Learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is the usual practice for the dealers of motor vehicle to get the vehicle registered and insured before its delivery and that the dealer collects required expenses for it. Assuming that there is such a practice and if a dealer for some reason delivers the vehicle without registration and insurance, that does not permit the owner or any other person to use that vehicle on public place. Therefore we think that the primary duty is on the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle registered and insured before its use on public road. <br /> <br /> The Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that the compensation that might be ordered to be paid against him in the M.V.C 8764/2009 on the file of MACT at Bangalore should be reimbursed by OP for his failure to get the motorcycle insured before its delivery. Even assuming that there is an obligation on the dealer to get the vehicle insured before its delivery, it may not be proper to direct the dealer to reimburse the compensation to be awarded against complainant. It appears there is no direct nexus between the liability to pay compensation for causing accident due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle and not getting the vehicle insured. The loss caused due to the negligent act of OP can only be compensated. The negligent act of OP is not insuring the vehicle assuming that there was such an obligation on him. Causing of accident by rash and negligent act of riding of motorcycle has no nexus with not effecting the insurance. Therefore OP cannot be directed to reimburse the compensation that might be awarded against complainant in the MVC 8764/2009. <br /> <br /> For the above reasons we hold that at best there is deficiency in service by OP in not effecting registration of the motorcycle before its delivery in contravention of the above said Rule 42 which prescribes a duty on the dealer to deliver the motor vehicle only after its registration whether temporary or permanent, even in the absence of an agreement to effect registration. We think the complainant has failed to establish that OP had agreed to effect insurance of the motor cycle before its delivery. For the deficiency in service as noted above we think compensation of Rs.5,000/- may be awarded in favour of complainant. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:-<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to complainant, within 30 days from the date of this order. In default the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of June 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />