GOYAL AUTOMOBILES Vs. GUHARAM MANJHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein was OP No. 2, before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raigarh (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), who has been directed, vide order dated 19.9.2008, in complaint case No. 47/08 by the District Forum to pay Rs. 43,938 to the complainant / respondent No. l, on account of loss to the vehicle in a road accident. Apart from it, Rs. 1,000 as cost of litigation has also been awarded. Against the respondent No. 2 herein, who was insurer of the vehicle, no direction has been passed.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that Hero Honda Glamour Motorcycle was purchased by respondent No. 1/complainant on 9.6.2007, from the appellant herein through his local sub -dealer at Sarangarh. As per the complaint, apart from cost of the vehicle amount for obtaining registration certificate and insurance policy have also been paid to the appellant herein and then immediately cover -note was provided by the agent of respondent No. l to the complainant on the same date. Unfortunately, on the next day, when the complainant / respondent No. l was riding that motorcycle and stopped in the way, for taking tea after parking the vehicle near the road, a truck dashed that vehicle causing damages to the same. The incident was reported to the police and also to the dealer of the motorcycle. Insurance Company was also intimated. Respondent No. 2 appointed a Surveyor for assessment of loss, but even after assessment of loss no amount was paid by the Insurance Company or by the dealer. Then the complaint was filed before District Forum.

(3.) IN reply, so far as the appellant herein is concerned, he took the stand that Manoj Auto, Sarangarh, was sub -dealer and on his demand the vehicle was sent there. The price of the vehicle was paid by the sub -dealer, then bill was issued by the appellant and nothing was obtained by the appellant in respect of registration certificate and insurance cover. Thus, liability has been denied. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it has been averred in the written version that the vehicle was not insured by it on the date of incident. The policy was issued covering the risk from 16.6.2007 and prior to that date, there was no responsibility of the Insurance Company.