By Smt. Beena. M,  Member:

          This is a complaint filed under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-  The case of the Complainant is that he was the owner of the motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL 11 A 9785 and he sold the vehicle to the Opposite Parties with all original documents.   Afterwards the Opposite Party No.2 had sold the vehicle to 3^rd Opposite Party without changing the ownership of the vehicle.  The motor cycle was met with an accident after 5 months from the date of its sale, when the motorcycle was ridden by the  3^rd Opposite Party without having driving license. The injured had filed claim petition before the Hon’ble MACT, Kalpetta as OP(MV) No.221/2015 and the Complainant was impleaded as 2^nd  respondent  being the R.C owner and Opposite Party No.2 as 4^th  respondent and an award was passed against the Complainant.  The insurance company deposited the awarded amount and initiated revenue recovery proceedings against the Complainant to recover the deposited amount from the Complainant.  The Opposite Parties had acted negligently.  Without transferring the ownership of the vehicle, the Opposite Party sold it to another person and the act of the Opposite Parties caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties had assured that the vehicle would be sold to another person only after changing the name in the RC.  The Complainant was not aware of the alleged accident till the time of receipt of the notice from MACT. Hence, the Complainant prays before this Commission to direct the Opposite Party to pay the revenue recovery amount claimed by the insurance company against the Complainant and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the Complainant.

  3. Opposite Parties entered appearance and the first and second Opposite Parties filed version denying the averments in the Complaint.   The case of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are that the Complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has no locus standi to file the Complaint and is not maintainable.  The first and second Opposite Parties denied the statement of the Complainant that the motor cycle was purchased by them was sold to 3^rd opposite party.  The Opposite Parties have no connection with the sale of the vehicle and the original documents were not collected by them.    The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties were aware of the fact that the Complainant had enjoyed the facility of true value mela conducted by these Opposite Parties and sold out his vehicle to 3^rd Opposite Party and  caused accident.   The Opposite Party No. 2 was a party to the proceeding of OP (MV) 221/2015 filed by the injured and award was passed against the Complainant, the original RC owner.   There is no negligence from the side of these Opposite Parties.  Being the RC owner of the vehicle, the Complainant had the bounden duty to transfer the RC. The Opposite Parties have no liability to compensate, only the purchaser has the liability to compensate the loss.    Therefore, the first and second Opposite Parties prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.  

    4.  Opposite Party  No.3  did not appear and the Commission set him              ex-parte.    

   5. On perusal of Complaint, Version and Documents the Commission raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of Opposite Parties?
2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relieves as prayed for?

   6.  Point No. 1 and 2 :-  For the sake of convenience and brevity all points are considered together.

     7.  The Complainant adduced oral evidence.  The Complainant was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext. A1.  On behalf of the First and Second Opposite Parties, Opposite Party No. 2 adduced oral evidence, Manager of the Opposite Party No.2 was examined as OPW1.  

8. The case of the Complainant is that though he had sold the vehicle to the Opposite Parties they sold it to another person and caused accident. Therefore the Opposite parties are alleged to be responsible of the loss. But no evidence is produced before us to ensure the sale of the vehicle by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties content that they had neither purchased nor sold the vehicle of the Complainant. According to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant had sold the vehicle to the third Opposite Party through the True Value Mela conducted by the Opposite Parties. The Complainant could not prove his case with evidence that there has been any consumer seller relationship with the Opposite Parties.      Sec. 50 of Motor Vehicles Act says that the transferor shall (i) in the case the vehicle is registered within the State, within 14 days of the transfer, report the fact of transfer, in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by the Central Government to the Registering authority within whose Jurisdiction the transfer is to be effected and shall send a copy of the said report to the transferee.  It is not right to accuse the 1st and 2nd Opposite Parties of the default without fulfilling the responsibility that the Complainant has to fulfill.  The Complainant shall not escape from his own fault.  

9. It is true that the Complainant has suffered financial loss and suffering due to the act of the 3rd Opposite Party.  The Complaint regarding the transactions with the 3^rd Opposite party do not come within the purview of this Commission.  Here, the Complainant has not produced any document to prove the allegations stated in the Complaint.

10. On the arguments of the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, this Commission is of the view that there has not been service deficiency on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties.  

 In the result, the Complaint is dismissed without cost.   

  Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected

by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the  30^th  day of September 2022.

            Date of filing:27.11.2018
                                                                                    PRESIDENT:   Sd/-      

                                                                   MEMBER   :   Sd/-                   

                                                                             MEMBER   :   Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1.           Hameed. P.V.                           Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1.        Abhilash. K.                                      Service Manager,  K.V.R Motors,

                                                                   Muttil.                 

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1.             Copy of  Notice.                      dt:10.10.2018.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

Nil.      

                                                                                                                PRESIDENT :  Sd/-

                                                                                                                MEMBER               :  Sd/-

                                                ­                                                                    MEMBER               :  Sd/-

                        /True Copy/

                                                      Sd/-

                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR,

                                            CDRC, WAYANAD.