THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI – LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NOS. 1645/2013
1. The Managing Director, India Garage, Dealers,
Mahendra Dealers, No.63, St.Marks Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
2. The Manager, India Garage, Dealers,
Mahendra Dealers, Gubbi Road, Tumkur.
…………Appellants
(By Shri/Smt. Siddartha & Omprakash, Adv.,)
-Versus-
Venkatesh S/o Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Bharathipura, Sompura Hobli,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Now residing at Venkateshwara Nilaya,
Door No.61, Behind Sri.Shiradi Sai Baba Temple,
Amarjothinagar, Tumkur Town.
………Respondent/s
(By Sri/Smt. T.C.Satish Kumar, Adv.,)
: ORDER:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Opposite Party/appellant preferred this appeal against the order dated:19/10/2013 passed by District commission, Tumkur, wherein the said Commission directed them to replace a new Bolero vehicle of the same make/type within 30 days, failing which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.6,39,897/- to the complainant together with future interest at the rate of 9% P.A. along with cost.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:-
The complainant has purchased one Mahindra Bolero from the Opposite Parties on 31.12.2010 by making down payment and its value was Rs.6,13,847/- and the balance amount was paid by the complainant through loan raised with Mahindra Finance. After the sale of the vehicle, they have issued a sale certificate, form No.22 advising the complainant to register the vehicle with RTO. But after obtaining the vehicle, the complainant failed to register the said vehicle before the RTO Authority even after lapse of 20 months. But the complainant alleged that he has requested the appellants/Opposite Parties to register the vehicle, for which the Opposite Party/appellant has demanded for Rs.1,00,000/- towards registration and also demanded for vehicle insurance premium of Rs.32,300/-. In spite of payment of the said amounts, the appellant/Opposite Parties have not registered the vehicle and subsequently filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Opposite Parties and prays for replacement of the vehicle.
3. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this Opposite Parties to replace the vehicle or in alternative to refund the entire amount paid towards the purchase of the vehicle.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant is before this Commission by filing an appeal on various grounds.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal and certified copy of the order, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the Mahindra SLV-BS III Bolero Four Wheeler from Opposite Party No.2 on 31.10.2010 for a consideration amount of Rs.6,13,874/-. It is also an admitted fact that the vehicle was not registered in the name of the complainant even after lapse of 20 months after the purchase.
7. The District Commission after considering the non registration of the vehicle in the name of complainant has directed the Opposite Parties to replace the vehicle. The said order is not in accordance with law as because at the time of sale, the seller/Opposite Parties are bound to register the vehicle temporarily for 15 days. Accordingly, the amount was received towards the said temporary registration. The complainant has not narrated in his pleadings that he has paid a road tax to Opposite Parties for permanent registration of the vehicle in his name. It is the bounden duty of the complainant to register the vehicle in his name by paying a required road tax and by producing Form No.22 issued by the Opposite Parties before the RTO Authority of the locality. But he had demanded the Opposite Party to register the vehicle.
8. The learned advocate for Opposite Parties vehemently argued that they have got temporarily registered the vehicle and handed over the sale certificate, tax invoice, Form No.22, which indicate that the complainant is required to register the vehicle before the RTO Authority and we noticed that the said vehicle met with an accident, for which no complaint was registered before the police and vehicle was repaired by the Opposite Parties/Company and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid towards the repair charges and yet to pay Rs.1,32,210/- towards repair charges. The complainant has not explained why he has not claimed own damage claim under the policy even though the policy is in force and there is a temporary registration was effected. The said facts were suppressed by the complainant during trial. The District Commission without considering these facts, has blindly directed the Opposite Parties to replace the vehicle which is not in accordance with law.
9. Further, we are of the considered opinion that if at all the Opposite Parties agreed to register the vehicle by receiving the road tax and registration charges, the complainant definitely would have filed a complaint for recovery of the said amount after registration of the vehicle. The complainant had not made any efforts to get register the vehicle in his name. As such there is negligence on the part of complainant himself in not registering the vehicle. Hence, the order passed by the District Commission has to be set-aside. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is allowed. No costs.
The impugned order dated:09/10/2013 passed by the District commission, Tumkur in C.C.No.74/2015 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the appellant/Opposite Parties.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/-
Lady Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
