Haryana

Panchkula

CC/137/2015

PAWAN KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SWARAN SINGH & OTHERS. - Opp.Party(s)

AMITABH SURI

05 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	137 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	28.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	05.02.2016

                                                                                          

Pawan Kumar Sidhu s/o Sh.Satish Kumar Singh, R/o H.No.1400, Sector-11, Panchkula.

                                                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       Swaran Singh s/o Sh.Sadda Singh, VPO Saketri, District & Tehsil Panchkula, Haryana.

2.       Manohar Mehta, H.No.198, Sector-19, Panchkula.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     None for the complainant. 

Mr.Ravinder Sharma, Adv., for the Op No.1.

Mr.Vikram Bhardwaj, Adv., for the Op No.2.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The complainant-Pawan Kumar Sidhu has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (in short the Ops) with the averments that the OP No.2 introduced himself as car dealer and pursued the complainant for buying a swift car vehicle No.HR03 G 8505, chassis No.194476 Engine No.3309308. The dealer assured the complainant that the car was not accidental nor any body part of the said vehicle has been painted and mileage of the car was more than 15 KM per liter. The Op No.2 also assured the complainant that no mechanical work or repair was required. The Op No.2 further assured that the condition of car was like brand new and only 50000 KM has been done and also told that there were no scratches on the car and the condition of the car was original company condition. On the assurance of the Op No.2, the complainant agreed to meet the owner of car i.e. Op No.1 and also inquired about the car and the vehicle was also assured by Op No.1 on 01.06.2015. On that assurance, the complainant agreed to purchase the vehicle for Rs.2,00,000/- and also gave Rs.5,000/- as token money to Ops. On the same day i.e. 01.06.2015, the complainant paid Rs.1,85,000/- and had taken the vehicle in possession and they mutually decided that after transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant, the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- would be paid. On very next day i.e. 02.06.2015, the complainant took the vehicle for washing at Manimajra motor market and he came to know that the vehicle was painted from three doors & front and rear bumper was also painted which indicated the accident. The complainant also came to know that the market price of the vehicle was not more than Rs.1,50,000/- which was wrongly sold to the complainant on the wrong representation of car. The complainant contacted the Ops several times for refund of amount but they did not listen to him. The Op No.2 suggested the complainant to pay Rs.10,000/- to Op No.1 and get transfer the vehicle on his name but the complainant asked for refund of amount. The complainant requested the Ops many times for refund but to no avail. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. In reply, the OP No.1 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.1 was the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.HR-03-G-8505, Chassis No.194476, Engine No.3309308 make Maruti Swift Car. It is submitted that the complainant approached the Op No.1 for purchase of the vehicle and inspected the vehicle. It is submitted that after inspection and taking test drive of the vehicle for about 2-3 hours, the complainant agreed to purchase the same and the deal of the vehicle was finalized in Rs.2,00,000/-. It is submitted that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with the assurance that the remaining amount would be paid within two weeks and thereafter, get the vehicle transferred in his name. It is submitted that the Op No.1 requested the complainant to make the balance payment of Rs.10,000/- and get the vehicle transferred in his name but the complainant totally refused to make the payment of the balance amount and threatened the Op No.1 either to get the vehicle transferred in his name otherwise he would implicate him in some false case. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
3. In reply, the OP No.2 filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections and submitted that the Op No.2 is neither the dealer nor the complainant ever approached the OP No.2 for purchase of the vehicle. It is submitted that the complainant falsely implicated the OP No.2 as party. It is submitted that the Op No.2 approached the complainant with the Op No.1 for receiving the amount of Rs.10,000/- but the complainant refused to make the payment. Thus, there is no deficiency in service and untrade practice on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. When on 28.12.2015, the case was fixed for consideration on application filed by counsel for the OP No.2 for dismissal of the complaint and for filing evidence of the Op No.2. The complainant has not appeared for consideration and the case was adjourned to 04.01.2016 for consideration on application and for filing evidence of the Op No.2 but on 04.01.2016, the complainant has not appeared and the Op No.2 has tendered his evidence and the case was adjourned to 08.01.2016 for arguments. On 08.01.2016, again the complainant has not appeared for consideration on the application and for arguments despite repeated calls. Thereafter, we have heard the arguments on application and on complaint and also considered the case file carefully and minutely.
5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the OPs and have given our conscious thought to the pleas raised during the course of hearing in their relatability to the pleadings made by the counsel for the OPs herein.
6. From the material available on the case file, it is established that the complainant had purchased a vehicle from the OP No.1 through OP No.2 for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and also make the payment to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/-. It was also admitted that rest of the payment i.e. Rs.10,000/- would be paid after transfer of the vehicle in the name of the complainant.  It is admitted by the complainant that the possession of the vehicle has also been delivered on 01.06.2015. The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have sold the accidental vehicle to him  on a higher rate as the market price of the vehicle was not more than Rs.1,50,000/- and even the vehicle is painted from three doors besides front and rear bumper. On the other hand, the Ops have come with the plea that the complainant in order to avoid the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- has filed the present complaint and even the allegations made in the complaint are afterthought as he was never compelled  or force to purchase the vehicle because the vehicle was purchased by him after taking test drive of the same. It has been further argued that the complainant has not led any evidence on the case file to show that the vehicle was accidental and even failed to show that the vehicle was painted from three doors besides front and rear bumper.
7. After going through the complaint, reply, affidavits and documents placed on file by both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has not been able to lead any cogent and reliable evidence to prove the version taken by him. Though the complainant in his complaint has mentioned that the vehicle was accidental, cost of the vehicle was less than the cost he had paid for the same and the vehicle was painted from many sides but he has not placed any document on the case file to support the version taken by him. The complainant has also not filed re-joinder to the reply wherein the OP No.1 has specifically mentioned that the complainant had taken test drive of the vehicle for 2-3 hours. It is worthwhile to mention here that the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are benevolent in nature but it does not give any right to complainant to take the shelter of the same as the act and conduct of the complainant shows that instead of making the balance amount he had filed the present complaint just to harass the Ops.   Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled as S.Girija Selvaraj Vs. The Proprietor decided on 04.02.2013 in Revision Petition No.3092 of 2012 has held as under:

12.             It is well settled that any party who seeks an equitable relief must approach the judicial Forum with clean hands and should not conceal the material facts. Honble Supreme Court in Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. M/s Uppal Agencies P. Ltd. & Anr. Special Leave Petition (c) No. 18225-18226 of 2011 dated 14.08.2011 observed ;

From what we have stated above, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, he is not entitled to be heard on the merits of his grievance. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the judgment of this Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of UP (2010) 2 SCC 114, the first two paragraphs of which are extracted below ;

1. For many centuries Indian Society cherished two basic values of life i.e. satya (truth) and Ahinsa (non-violence) Mahavir, Gautam Budha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people use to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppressions of facts in the court proceedings.

2.           In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed to not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.

 

8. For the reasons mentioned in the above paras, we hold that the complaint deserves dismissal. It is hereby dismissed accordingly. The parties shall, in the circumstances of the case, bear their own costs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

 

 

Announced:

05.02.2016      S.P.ATTRI         ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER         MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          

                                                         DHARAM PAL

                                                          MEMBER