JUDGEMENT
By : SMT. Bandana Roy,
DATE: 20-12-2016
The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased one motor cycle (Unicorn 160) being registered No. WB 30U/3797 from the shop of the OP on 14.09.2015. The price of the motor cycle was fixed at Rs. 90,026.00 including of registration charge, insurance and other expenses. The OP issued a receipt being No. 208 dated 14.09.15. The petitioner paid Rs. 93,000/- in four instalments. Suddenly on 23.04.16 the said motor cycle of the complainant met with an accident on NH 02 and one person died. The motor cycle was seized by police in the Gurap police case being No.56 of 2016. The complainant got bail and also released the said motor cycle. The successors of the person died in the accident claimed death benefit and then the complainant came to know that the concerned dealer did not purchase the insurance policy although he paid the premium of policy on 14.09.15 but the OP purchased the policy of insurance only on 26.04.16 which is totally an unfair practice by the OP. The heirs of the deceased person are claiming Rs. 4,00,00/- regularly and at this situation the petitioner is facing much hardship in his daily life.
Under such circumstances the petitioner has come up before this Forum with the prayer made in the complaint.
The OP Usha Motors has contested the complaint and has filed written version and denied all the material allegations. It claims that the case is not maintainable under various Rules and Acts. Specific case of this OP is that the complainant came to the shop of the OP on 14.09.15 with a view to exchange his old vehicle and to take a new one. The value of the old motor cycle was fixed at Rs. 35,000/- and the sale price of the new Unicorn Bike was Rs. 90,000/- and other charges of fittings etc. was fixed at Rs. 3000/-. In total the complainant paid Rs. 93,026/-. On the very next date the complainant came to the shop to cancel the hypothecation and wanted to take the said new motor cycle by cash partly and also with the assurance to pay all the amounts due by 2/3 days. On the very date on 15.09.15 the complainant also took back his old motor cycle. The OP agreed to return back the old motor cycle and agreed to receive the balance by 2/3 days as assured by the complainant. But the complainant did not turn up to pay the amount till 10.12.15. On 11.12.15 complainant came and tendered a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant paid Rs. 81,000/- up to 11.12.15 out of Rs. 93,000/-. On 11.12.15 the sales Manager of the OP requested the complainant to pay balance amount within seven days otherwise the OP will not be able to take any steps for insurance or tax token for the vehicle.The complainant did not turn up. Lastly at the closing of the academic year the OP send a staff to the house of the complainant for clearance of the dues, but the complainant threatened him with murder. On12.0416 the complainant paid dues of Rs.12,000/- to the OP for his vehicle. The OP after receipt of the amount prepared all the documents for insurance. The official records speaks that Head Office paid instalment on 26.04.16 and sent to RTO for registration of the vehicle on 27.04.16 and also paid various taxes due. The franchises of Prasanta Honda Automobiles has no right to issue original sale certificate or tax invoice to the customers. The complainant was well aware of the above facts but still paid the dues on 12.04.16. The complainant did not inform the OP about the accident took place on 23.04.16 at Hooghly District. The complainant took the vehicle to District Hooghly without having any valid paper or documents of registration or insurance.
In the above circumstances, the OP prays for dismissal of the harassing motivated complaint of the complainant.
The point for discussion is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this complaint petition.
Decision with Reasons.
Admittedly the complainant purchased one motorcycle (Unicorn 160) registered No. of which is 30 U/3797 from the shop of the OP on 14.09.15 and total value of the said motor cycle was fixed at Rs. 93,026/-. According to the complainant he paid Rs. 15,000/- to the OP on 14.09.15. complainant filed one receipt from where it is seen that exchange value is Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 1000/- = Rs. 36,000/-The complainant has stated that he paid total due in four instalments as follows :
On 14.09.15 Rs. 15,000/-
On 15.09.15 Rs. 36,000/-
On 11.12.15 Rs. 30,000/- and
On 12.04.16 Rs. 12,000/- totaling Rs. 93,000/-.
According to the complainant the OP received the amount of Rs. 1553/- on 14.09.15 for the insurance coverage against said motor cycle but the OP purchased the policy against said motor cycle on 26.04.16 which is according to the complainant total unfair practice on the part of the OP. It is also alleged that the complainant visited the shop of the OP but the OP did not deliver any insurance certificate. It is also not disputed that on 23.04.16 the motor cycle of the complainant met an accident on NH-02 under Gurap PS under the District Hooghly and due to this accident one person namely Mahammad Nazrul Ansari died and one PS case being Gurap PS case No 56/16 dated 26.04.16 was started and the said motor cycle of the complainant was seized by police. The complainant stated that the OP gave false assurance on several occasion and behaved badly with the complainant. Hence the complainant has filed this case.
The question is whether the complainant has played unfair business practice with the complainant in not issuing the insurance policy.
According to the OP the complainant on 14.09.15 came to their shop for exchanging an old vehicle. Value of the old vehicle was fixed at Rs. 35,000/- and sell price of the new motor cycle was Rs. 90,000/- and Rs.3000/- as maintenance, totaling Rs. 93,000/-. This fact has been suppressed by the complainant in his complaint petition.
The complainant did not state that he has exchanged his old motor cycle against a new one. In this circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant’s conduct is not free from doubt in this matter.
It is also admitted that on 15.09.15 the complainant came to the shop of the OP and asked to cancel the hypothecation and on the same day the complainant took back his old motor cycle which was exchanged. OP agreed with the proposal and returned back the old motor cycle and cancelled the hypothecation. According to the OP the complainant did not come till 10.12.15 in their shop. On 11.12.15 the complainant came to their shop and tendered a sum of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant admitted that fact in his written argument. The complainant paid Rs. 81,000/- out of Rs. 93,000/- on11.12.15 to the OP which will be seen from the complainant’s written argument. The OP has stated that at the time the OP informed the complainant that they will not be able to take any steps as regards insurance ,tax token or registration of the vehicle until full payment is made. On 12.04.16 the complainant made full payment. After receiving full payment the OP sent all documents to the Head Office on 26.04.16 and RTO for registration of the vehicle and OP stated that there was no wilful latches on the part of the OP. it was also alleged by the OP that the complainant did not inform that the vehicle met with an accident on 23.04.16 at Hooghly District.
Ld lawyer for the OP argued that the complainant cannot ply the vehicle when admittedly its registration was not done. It is surprising that the complainant drove the vehicle dangerously as a result of which a person died, which is admitted by the complainant.
According to Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (1) whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows motor vehicle to be used in contravention of the provisions of Section 39 shall be punishable for the first offence with a fine which may extend to five thousand rupees but shall not be less than two thousand rupees for a second or subsequent offence with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees but shall not be less than five thousand rupees or with both.
In this connection we want to refer a decision reported in 2016 (II) CPR 537 (NC) wherein it has been held “ Violators of law can not deserve any concessional treatment”.
In this connection we also want to refer the case of Kalyan Singh Chauchan Vs. the National Insurance Co. 2014(CPJ) 16 (NC) wherein it has been held that “Invalid route permit and registration – claim repudiated –alleged deficiency in service – District Forum allowed claim on non-standard basis – State Commission allowed appeal – Hence, revision – Vehicle was being plied on public road without valid route permit at the time of accident. For that violation penal liability provided under Section 192 (A) of MV Act 1988 - Complainant can not claim indemnity in view of violation of expressed “Limitation as to Use” provided in insurance contract – By permitting vehicle to be driven without registration, petitioner has committed violation of Section 39 of the MV Act which also amounts to fundamental breach of the policy – Repudiation justified.
Till today admittedly a case is pending agaionstthe complainant for rash driving.The complainant himself stated that without registration of the vehicle he plied the same in another district ie Hooghly.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the complainant’s case has no merit. There was clear violation of Section 192 of the M V Act 1988 by the complainant which is a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Till today the OP has not repudiated the claim of the complainant but complainant has filed the present case alleging unfair trade practice of the OP which is not true. We do not find any misconduct of the OP regarding dealing with the complainant in this matter.
Accordingly we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case No 258/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest. The parties shall bear their respective cost.
