##PAGE1##

Appeals filed on: 24-02-2014 Appeals disposed on: 24-03-2026

BEFORT THE I{ARNATAI(A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRTSSAL COMMISSION, CIRCUIT BENCH-2, BELAGAVI

DATED THIS THE 24rh DAy OF MARCH,20/26

CORAM: HON,BLE SRI.RAVI SHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI, LADY EMBER

APPEAL NOS.218/2014

The Proprietor, 1 M/s Biljargi Motors,

Authorized dealer of TATA Motors and Fiat, NH-13, Bye-pass,

Indi Road Cross, Bijapur-586104 ... Appellant/s

2 The Manager, M/s Bijjargi Motors,

Shop No.2, Daneshwari Complex, Near Basaveshwar Engr College, Vidyagiri, Bagalkot-587 O2

1 (Bg Sri Benedict Anand, Ad.uocate)

-Versus-

Dr. Hanamagouda Veeranagoud Lebageri, aged about 38 years, Ward No. 10, Extension Area ... Respondent/s

Bagalkot-S87 101 (Bg Sr-l.K.V.Hlremath, Advocdte- Vakalath not filed)

App€al Nos.218/2014

ORDER

BY HON'BLE SRI RAVISHANI(AR. ^{JUDICIAL MEMBER}

The Appellant/Opposite ^{Party in complaint No.9O/2O12 preferred} this appeal against ^the order ^{passed by the District Consumer} Commission, Bagalkot which directed ^{this appellant to pay an amount of} Rs. 1,70,000/- to ^the complainant ^{within two months from the date of} receipt of this order and further ^{directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation}

expenses.

2. Hexd further from the appeltant. ^{The respondent is not present} and not submitted his arguments.

3. Perused the certilied copy of the order ^{passed by the}, before the District Commission.

Commission and memorandum of appeal and ^{also documents produced}

4. The case of the complainant is that, he had booked one ^NEW TATA ARIA by paying Rs.2,00,000/- as advance amount. ^{Subsequently,} the car was ready for delivery by the time he wrote a letter ^{assuring to} pay the balance amount of Rs. 11,51,291/- within 4 to 5 days by ^way of DD. Accepting the said obligation and assurance this appellant ^had delivered the vehicle, believing that he ^going to ^pay the ^balance

2

Appea.l Nos.2l8l2014

consideration amount. Unfortunately on 31.10.2011 the vehicle met with an accident and suffered damages. At the time accident, the policy was issued in the name of the respondent. Basing on the policy, he claimed for damages wherein he has noted that the vehicle was driven by himself. Knowing all these, this appellant sought for payment of balance consideration amount. Instead of paying the said balance consideration amount, the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency of service and sought for refund of the advance amount. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint and directed this appeilant to refund an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- and also directed to pay Rs.500/- as litigation cost. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant came

before this Commission.

5. It is not dispute that, the vehicle met with an accident. It is also not in dispute that, the policy was issued as on the date of delivery. The policy commences from 4. 10.2011 to 3.10.2012, which clearly goes to show that, the vehicle was delivered by the appellant and the complainant/respondent has taken possession and driven the vehicle without paying balance consideration amount. The complainant had not shown €rny reason why he tendered letter dated 5.12.2011 assuring to pay Rs.11,51,291/- apart from payment of Rs.2,OO,O0O/- advance. This letter is a clear admission by the complainant to show that, he has taken

& a

3

Appeal Nos.2l8l 2014

the delivery of the vehicle. Add on to this, the complainant also claimed for own damage through a claim form dated 25.11.2011. When we look into these scenarios, it is clear case that, the complainant had driven the vehicle without paying the balance consideration amount to the appellant and the vehicle was met with an accident. By virtue of the policy, he claimed for own damage, but he had not paid the consideration €unount to the appeilant, instead of that he had issued a lega1 notice alleging deficiency of service and sought for refund of the advance amount paid. The act of the complainant goes to shows that he had suppresse