DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.752 of 2019
Date of institution: 16.05.2019 Date of decision : 02.07.2019
Sanjay Kumar Kushwana son of Bhanu Prakash Singh, resident of B7/501, Nirmachhaya Towers, VIP Road, Zirakpur.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., Plot No.C-118, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Punjab 160055.
2. Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., Plot No.81, Industrial Area, Phase II, Chandigarh 160002.
3. Mahindra First Choice Wheels Ltd., 10th Floor, DLH Park, S.V. Road, Near Goregaon West Telephone Exchange, Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400062.
4. Mr. Neeraj Luthra, Proprietor of M/s. Century 199/3 PNB Wali Gali, Sharda Road, Merrut.
5. Mr. Nitin Aggarwal, resident of 8-11 NICS House, Begum Bagh, Opposite Andhra Pradesh, Merrut.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Shri Ajay Pal Singh Madaan, counsel for complainant.
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant bought second hand car through online portal of OP No.1 in 2011, and was shocked in 2017 to know that documents got supplied by OP No.1 to OP No.5 at the time of sale of car in favour of complainant were not in the name of complainant. Rather said second hand car is still in the name of previous owner. OP No.1 and 2 claim themselves to be India’s largest and most trusted multi brand providing services for buying and selling second hand cars. As per claim of OPs, second hand cars undergoes thorough check and investigation conducted by expert mechanics and technicians. Second hand car is sold only after the car passes all the tests conducted by respondent/company. Officials of OP No.1 and 2 assures that all documents in relation to transfer, ownership and any other document would be the headache of OPs and buyer would not have to keep his foot in any of the procedures related to documentation. OP No.1 and 2 in its advertisements promised service of transparency, trust and peace of mind to every customer; expertise and professionalism etc. Complainant was persuaded by officials of OP No.1 and 2 on 21.06.2011 to buy Maruti Zen LXI bearing registration No.HR-16-J-8795 of 2006 model. OP No.1 to 5 assured that the car is having no defect and that is why car was purchased on 22.06.2011 for a sale consideration of Rs.1,80,000/-, out of which Rs.70,000/- were paid in cash, but Rs.1,00,000/- transferred to the account of OP No.4. Remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid when registration of car was to be received by complainant, as per terms of agreement of sale dated 22.06.2011. Complainant claims that he had been sending emails since from 27.06.2011 to 05.07.2011, but to no effect. Complainant claims to have run from pillar to post for ensuring receipt of registration certificate of the car, but OPs have not provided the same. Complainant claims to have received registration certificate in his name in November, 2011 i.e. after long time span of 6 months. Thereafter balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by complainant. However, in further paras of the complaint, it is mentioned as if truth unveiled in 2017 when complainant decided to sell the car in question to someone else. The buyer was ready to pay Rs.1,20,000/- as price of the car to complainant. On checking of online record of registration authority, complainant got knowledge as if the car has never been registered in his name, but same is still in the name of previous owner Gurdeep Singh. Complainant claims to have got knowledge as if registration certificate possessed by him is a forged document. Despite service of legal notice, nothing done by OPs and that is why this complaint for seeking compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs for mental trauma, humiliation, pain and anguish including amount of Rs.1,20,000/- as market value of the car.
2. Arguments heard for admission purpose.
3. Copy of agreement Ex.C-2 produced to show as if OPs sold car No.HR-16-J-8795 to complainant in 2011 and thereafter delivery note Ex.C-3 dated 22.06.2011 was issued. Through delivery note Ex.C-3 dated 22.06.2011, complainant took responsibility of paying all types of traffic offences liabilities as well as of RTO tax and premium of insurance of vehicle. RTO tax is payable with respect to registration certificate as road tax or vehicle fee and as such it is obvious that complainant himself undertook responsibility through delivery note Ex.C-3 to pay road tax of the car in question to transport authorities.
4. It is unbelievable that a person purchasing car in June 2011 will remain silent for 6 years in matter of ascertaining as to who actually is the registered owner of car, more so when he through delivery note Ex.C-3 has taken responsibility of paying RTO tax and premium of insurance. Copy of insurance cover note is not at all produced on record to establish that the car was still in the name of previous owner at the time of getting of annual insurance during period from 2011 to 2017. If the contents of complaint believed that complainant got knowledge regarding alleged act of forgery or of fraud committed by OPs with complainant in 2017, then this complaint is not maintainable because allegations of forgery and fraud cannot be gone into consumer complaint proceedings of summary nature. In Para 10 of the complaint it is specifically mentioned that complainant got knowledge about registration certificate as forged document in 2017. Whether or not that allegation is correct, for ascertaining the same, elaborate evidence required by way of examination and cross examination of witnesses. It is well settled that as and when allegations of fraud, forgery and cheating are to be proved, then remedy available with concerned is to approach civil court of competent jurisdiction because allegations of theft, forgery and fraud require elaborate evidence, due to which the matter cannot be decided by Consumer Fora in summary proceedings. Reference in this respect may be made to cases tiled as P.N. Khanna Vs. Bank of India, II (2015) CPJ 54 (NC); Bright Transport Company Vs. Sangli Sahakari Bank Ltd., II (2012) CPJ 151 (NC): Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Munnimaesh Patel IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC); Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., I (1998) CPJ 13 (NC); M/s. Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs. United Commercial Bank, III (1992) CPJ 50 (NC); Sagli Ram Vs. General Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd. II (1994) CPJ 444; Harbans & Co. Vs. State Bank of India, II (1994) CPJ 456; Jayantilal Keshavlal Chauhan Vs. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. 1994(1) CPR 396 and Ranju Devi Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 2015(4) CLT 131 (JHK). Being so, this complaint is not maintainable, more so when the same is barred by limitation also because cause of action accrued to complainant in June, 2011 when he purchased the car.
5. Perusal of Ex.C-5 reveals as if the car in question was hypothecated with someone and thereafter it was transferred in the name of complainant on 26.08.2011 by Registration Authority, Bhiwani. If the car was hypothecated with someone else earlier, and endorsement in that respect was existing on the RC as disclosed by Ex.C-5, then complainant could also have contacted the financer of the previous owner for finding as to whether actually the previous owner has paid the entire loan amount or not. Had that step been taken in 2011, then certainly complainant would have known in 2011 itself that copy of RC provided to him is not genuine. That has not been done and as such fault lay with complainant in not verifying the ownership of the car purchased by him.
6. Counsel for complainant vehemently contends that knowledge of non transfer of registration certificate in his name got by complainant in 2017 and as such complaint is within limitation, more so when as per ratio of case Dr. Shyam Kumar Vs. Rameshbhai Harmanbhai Kacchiya, Revision petition No.1486 of 2011 decided on 10.11.2005 by Hon’ble National Commission, the complaint can be filed within period of two years from the date of knowledge. However, facts regarding knowledge are self contradictory, as discussed in detail above while finding that story seems to has been concocted regarding date of knowledge and as such benefit from ratio of above cited case not available to complainant.
7. Section 50 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides that where ownership of any motor vehicle is transferred, then obligation is not only on the transferor to report the factum of transfer in such form with such documents and in such manner, as may be prescribed by Central Govt., but the obligation is also on the transferee to report about transfer to the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he is residing or has place of business, where the vehicle is normally kept. When such obligation is both on the transferor and transferee as per Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act, then certainly it was duty of complainant to inform the registering authority within whose jurisdiction he was having residence or place of business about the transfer of registration certificate in his name. Had such duty been performed by complainant as a transferee, then he could have prevented OPs from forging the registration certificate, more so when complainant is resident of Mohali.
8. As per Section 146 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no person shall allow use of motor vehicle in public place, unless said vehicle is having policy of insurance. If that be the position, then it was the duty of complainant to get the purchased vehicle insured every year. No copy of insurance cover note for period from 2011 to 2017 has been produced on record by complainant, despite the fact that driving of motor vehicle without insurance is an offence under Section 196 of Motor Vehicle Act. On getting of such vehicle insured, the insurer could have taken steps for finding the ownership of the vehicle in question because insurance policy always issued in the name of the owner. Non production of best evidence available with complainant shows as if complainant is suppressing facts for concocting story regarding lack of knowledge of alleged forgery of registration certificate.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed at admission stage being barred by limitation and non maintainable due to allegations of forgery of registration certificate. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
July 02, 2019.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
