CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.58/2018
Sh. ANKUR TRIVEDI,
S/o Sh. DINESH KUMAR TRIVEDI,
R/o H.NO. 141/C, GALI NO. 1,
G- BLOCK, SGM NAGAR
NIT, FARIDABAD HARYANA…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/s AUTO MARKS MOTORS PVT. LTD.
BLOCK –B/1-F/5,
MOHAN CO-OPERAIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110044
MOB. NO. 011-66503333, 9555225000
- PRINCE, SALES MANAGER
M/s AUTO MARK MOTORS PVT. LTD.
BLOCK- B/1-F/5,
MOHAN CO-OPERATIVE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MAIN MATHURA ROAD,
NEW DELHI – 110044..…..RESPONDENT/ OP
Date of Institution-12/03/2018
Date of Order- 13/07/2022
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA - PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking compensation of Rs. 3,58,570/- with interest @ 24 % per annum along with cost of litigation.
The facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a demo car namely Volkswagen Polo Highline (herein referred as a vehicle) and vide cheque No. 313551 paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- dated 02.06.2017. Thereafter, an amount
of Rs. 52,000/- was paid in cash. The receipt is attached along with complaint as Annexure A1. It is also stated that OP1 and OP2 charged Rs. 80,570/- from the complainant on account of registration charges where as the road tax and other charges paid in RTO, Faridabad by the OPs was only Rs. 31,890/-. It is a case of the complainant that the said vehicle’s speedometer was tampered, kms was reversed. It is alleged that as per the service vehicle’s manual, some parts of the vehicle were replaced by new one but as the speedometer was tampered, the complainant does not know actual facts regarding running of the vehicle. It is stated that meter reading of the vehicle was 25,005 on 28.02.2015, it was 25,006 on 16.04.2015 whereas it was 24,955 on 28.11.2016.
It is also alleged that OP 2 assured the complainant that the said vehicle was manufactured in the year 2015 and was used for demo car only and had not met with any accident but as per vehicle’s service record, this vehicle was manufactured in 2014 and heavy repair work was done on 30.09.2015 and on 05.01.2016 amounting to Rs. 79,743/- and Rs. 58,718/- respectively. This puts an apprehension in the mind of the complainant that the vehicle may be an accidented vehicle and this fact was concealed by the opposite parties while selling the same to the complainant. The complainant alleges that he has contacted the OP number of times but has not got any proper answer and only false assurances were given for settlement of the issues of the complainant.
It is further alleged by the complainant that there was cheating and misrepresentation on the part of OP while selling the vehicle to the complainant which has caused harassment and heavy financial loss in getting the vehicle repaired daily. Therefore, the complainant is seeking Rs. 57,000/- which was paid to the OP along with interest @18 % + Rs. 80,570/- as registration charges and compensation for physical and mental agony valued at Rs. 2,00,000/- and cost of legal proceedings Rs. 21,000/-.
The OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 25.04.2018 thereafter, the complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence as well as his written arguments. This Commission went through the entire record filed by the Complainant and notes that there are receipts signifying the payments. It is also seen from the record that there is Form 24 (Motor Vehicle Register) of Haryana Transport Department Authority which shows an amount to Rs. 31,690/- being paid to the Authority. And it is also noted that amount has also been paid for the temporary certificate of registration in Delhi.
Therefore, we do not find anything amiss in the registration amount taken by the OP from the complainant.
Since the OP were proceeded Ex-parte, this Commission does not have the benefit of their response on the allegations made against them by the complainant. However, it is trite in law that the complainant ought to prove his case even in the absence of OP so as to get relief from any Court. The complainant has filed on record, print out of the screenshot of his computer showing the irregularities in the speedometer. This kind of evidence, which can be easily tampered with, cannot be taken as proper evidence for deciding in favour of the complainant.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Limited V/S Dolphin International Limited” Civil appeal No. 5759/2009 decided on 06/10/2021 has held that the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service, quoting their earlier judgment reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and Anr. MANU/SC/0707/1999 : (2000) 1 SCC 66, this Court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
Guided by the above stated judgment, it is held that the complainant has not been able to prove his case and therefore the complainant is dismissed without any costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.
Order be uploaded on the website.
