High Court Karnataka High Court

C P Nagaraj vs The Regional Transport Officer on 17 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
C P Nagaraj vs The Regional Transport Officer on 17 July, 2009
Author: K.L.Manjunath
,@

-1-
in was HIGH COURT or KARNAEAKA Amt§$N§§i§Rfi j"'-
EATED THIS THE 17"*pA$ as Jfiif}féQ§é fiV'vV
BEEofiE : T"V'   xxx V
was HON'BLE Mr.':§sgxcfi"KRL.gzfi§&$AwH5
REGULAR sgconn A$§g§;.No.i2€éZ29$7
BETWEEN: V  . A v .  
C.P.Nagaraj sfo c.v-§:ak§$h;_ _a
26 years, Exakash Soda Fagtagyf

Gld Bus Stand} 2.BLR¢ad, x». ""
Davanaqéké{«_"** .-.~. = =f ' APPELLART
(By_Advo&a£§*sri.$;v}Ananda5for

 Jayakumarv$.Pat;l Assts.)

AND:

1.

The Rég1ona1’$kafisp§rt officer,
Eevaxaj Urs’£ayout, Davanagere.

\_gfieTgtéte of Kafnataka, “””

‘»?1dhana_Saudha, Bangalore.

. Mfg Sri,Mallikarjuna Tempo

A_$alefi.& Service, Nb,269/4,
fiayadeva Cxxcle Road,
Davafiagerewz.

w’.C

» §@;Eajaj fempo Limited,

. =A;Cbmpany having its registered
g office at Akurdi, Pane. .. Rsyoumznms

—.-……..m….;

This Regular Second Appeal is filed under Sec.300
of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2007

4.

passed in RA 182/O2 on the file of A«ddlV.AAi._Sesai_bns’__
Judge, Fast Track Court–I, Davanagere,-_é;lawing’ thew:
appeal and setting aside the judgmant and fleareefldétedj
39.7.2002 passed in os No.272;i99 _<:nj;t1;e",A£i1e.'vvg£..,i9a;-1.

Civil Judge (Jr.Dn..) , Bavanageiwe decréeiag 2 Suit
for reaovery of money. '* * s4A 7 " i'

This Appeal is cczn;."ng"V"a:si:i"i»£or éi::tm1_ "'s:§-ioiixi this day,
the Court delivered the faliqwing
J' :3 Va' G? ;2~i5'E'

Appen.a.m:: ' this p'1.a;'~i.z:;.'1':.a'.££."'b-=.-:el.¥.ai:e the 23:3,. Civil
Judge (J2.-.Di$4.} $0.272/99 which suit
was inst7.:itu1;'_Aé£:'ii.5'V1r;::3_g«V tine racovery of R.s.27,?87—00
which was 'V paid of tax to the Regional

wransporyt dfficar', A"'.BVa'§i}ax;agere on amount of the

i:i.istzii:}é* Bajaj Tempo Dealer when is 4"'

fiwgording to him, he approached 4*"

t i fsurchase a tempo txax with a seating

' tzapaaiizy tqf V 9+1. Aecorciingly, "va11:'t.c}.e was delivered

éjci. A' am' ipmiiant. While dalivering the vehicle,

-Snaétiiiiigji capacity of the vehicle was shown as 5+1

“–.izils”tead of 9+1. Vehicle was registereé in the name ofi

Erie appellant-plaintiff. Later, mistake was noticed

by the R510, therefore RTO called. upon the plaintiif ta

-3-

pay difference of tax in regard to the seating
capacity of the vehicle. Accordingly, plaintiff has
paid the anmount. contending that he was raade. tcyrpay a

sum ef R’s.25,’700/– as difference of tax of

the negligence of the dealer, suit _w.:ie_:

suit came ta be decreed. Agaizfflstdiféiaiéih

filed by the dealer in an iaa/269? which else cene to
be allowed by the Addl. See§i.ons Traci;
Court, Davanagere by its 2 dated

23 1.2007. Aggrieved by the h;ve£¢¢3£–§indings of the

courts is filed.

2 . Hea.i*d the the appellant.

3. According _ te 4′ counsel for the appellant,

appellete ceuft: «hasév comzzitted a serious error in

.”~::_-e§re;:.’.,a;.;i.:3.<;.v§; findings ef the trial court without;

cans;i;-61;:-:i}i's*:§_~,:t'ifi§,,~'fa,ct that the appellant was mis-rlead

lhy the dealer of the vehicle in supplying wrong

W _ nt seven thcugh he intended to purchase the

"'*»t;ehicle.*' with seating capacity «of 9+1 but it was

"'-taztrenhrly sheen as 5+1. On account of the latches on

the part of the dealer as the appellant was made to

w.

-4″

pay the axnomzt towards the differencse of tax,frS’ame has

to be made good by the dealer. ‘

4 . Having heard the counsel for the””.–.xpi§§23.’i~aint,

court does not see any substantiofi; ittgiesitiohii’-to.___o£:vo_Ailawt”. –:

involved in this appeal. fox: the téégoofis
Acsmz.’ ttedly appellantu”i’o»ii&:i~.endedV”‘ fiurchase a
vehicle with seating” 3+1. ficcordingly,

sale consideration is Vehicle

the deaier ;i;b_t:._11}$~ ” Efizere my be mistake in
the doc1Vm:e:nt’:V’it:nT’ ‘ti-.3 viseating capacity of the
vehicle when’ oapaoity of the vehicle was

known to ithae” p1é*.iiitif§;’oV it was for him to get the

vehiclgé ” registexoci liae.-fore the Rite, Davanagere by

seating oapaoity of the vehicle. Even

been cast upon the RTO to inspect

the R:fehi::1of~w’ A and register the same. In the

.,_.i’fj;-V’«oircurnstozgries, this court does not see any substantial

it =qi:é_st;i._.of;; of law arises in this appeal.

Accordingly, this appeal. is disrmssed.

éfi

Sé/-A
Fudge

R/220′?09