THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 27^th 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 Distric