Punjab

Ludhiana

MA/15/134

Rakesh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Motors ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Gupta adv

21 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                      Misc. application No:134 dated 21.12.2015.                                             Date of decision: 21.02.2023.

 

Rakesh Kumar Singla age 44 years son of Shri Sham Lal Singla, resident of 239-240, Block X, Maharishi Balmiki Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Tata Motors Limited, Marketing and Customer Support, Passenger Car Business Unit, One Forbes, 5^th Floor, Dr. V.B. Gandhi Marg, Fort Mumbai-400023.
2. Tata Motors Limited, Passenger Car Business Unit, SCO 170-171-172, Ist Floor, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.
3. Dada Motors Private Limited, Savitri Complex, G.T. Road, Dholewal, Ludhiana.
4. M.K. Bipin (Law), Tata Motors Limited, Jeevan Tara Building, 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi.

…..Opposite parties 

Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with section 195 Cr.P.C. for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents/opposite parties for making false statement and giving false/forged and fabricated documents in the court knowingly and intentionally during judicial proceedings and playing fraud with the Hon’ble Forum.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For applicant/complainant                :         Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate.

For respondent No.1, 2 and 4           :         Sh. R.K. Bhandari, Advocate.

For respondent No.3                         :         Sh. Kapil Katyal, Advocate.

 

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                This order shall dispose of the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant stating that he filed a complaint under Section 12 and 24 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents on 09.12.2012 and the same was decided on 22.09.2014. The complainant stated that as per Section 13 (5) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 every proceeding before the District Forum shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Pena Code (45 of 1860) and the District Forum shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). The complainant further submitted that opposite party No.1 and 2 Tata Motors Limited filed written statement in the said complaint No.919/2012 supported by affidavit of one M.K. Bipin, Manager (Law), Tata Motors Limited deposing that the facts contained in his accompanying written statement the contents of which have not been repeated herein for sake of brevity may be read as an integral part of this affidavit and are true and correct to his knowledge. Said M.K. Bipin for and on behalf of opposite party No.1 and 2 made false statement at page no.7 in para no.5 of written statement alleging that “the complainant had taken the delivery being issue satisfaction note to the respondent No.3 which is amply clear that complainant was providing all the services to his entire satisfaction and complainant was satisfied to the work done by the complainant.” He again deposed in para No.12 of the affidavit dated 09.03.2013 filed as evidence with documents “that on request made by the complainant the complainant was advised to brought the vehicle to the work and when complainant brought the vehicle to the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 had checked the vehicle and carried our necessary repairs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and complainant had taken the delivery after being satisfied with the repair jobs done.” The opposite party No.1 and 2 also filed false document in evidence Ex. R3 using it genuine document to cause wrongful gain to the company and wrongful loss to the complainant. The said document Ex. R3 is not signed by the complainant and in fact signed by one Rakesh Kumar son of Ram Kukar St. 2, New Tajpur Road, Ludhiana and mobile No.9988991812. The complainant further submitted that respondent No.3 is also connived with opposite party No.1 and 2 as opposite party No.3 has never given any such satisfactory note after service and he must had deposed in the court that no such satisfactory note was issued to them. The respondents have committed perjury and fraud in connivance with each other inside the court by making false statement and giving false documents in juridical proceedings to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and judicial enquiry is required to be conducted and appropriate criminal proceedings are to be initiated against the respondents. In the end, the complainant prayed for summoning the respondents and to enquire into and take appropriate action by passing orders for registration of FIR for making false statement and false documents in judicial proceedings.

2.                Upon notice, the respondents appeared and field their separate replies. In their reply, respondents No.1, 2 and 4  assailed the application on the ground of maintainability, concealment and suppression of material facts. The respondents alleged that the complainant has concealed the material fact of filing a similar application in the case No.919 of 2012 decided on 22.09.2014 to which the respondents filed reply but at that point of time, the complainant did not press the application and the said application was disposed of being dismissed as per law and as such, the application is barred by the principal of re-judicata. Moreover, the present application is time barred as the same has been filed in or around 2^nd week of December 2015 whereas the written statement in the present matter was filed by them in the year 2012/2013. The respondents further alleged that the document as alleged was neither prepared nor signed by the respondents rather the said document was provided to them by respondent no.3 and as such, the answering respondents cannot be held liable for the said document. The said document was produced by them under bonafide impression that the said document had been executed by the complainant as in the said document it has been mentioned that the said document had been signed either by the owner/driver of the vehicle bearing registration number mentioned in the said document. The answering respondents work with their dealers on principal to principal basis and they are not rendering any service to the respective customers and there is no privity of contract between them and the applicant.

                   On merits, respondent No.1, 2 and 4 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. However, the respondents admitted the decision of the complaint by this Forum (now Commission) vide order dated 22.09.2014. The respondents alleged that they filed F.A. No.202 of 2015 against the said order before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission which was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and it was only after setting aside the said order, the complainant has filed the present application to harass them. The respondents have not made any false statement in the written statement rather the said averments were made on the basis of record and documents provided by respondent No.3. Moreover, there is no privity of contract between the applicant and the respondents and are not rendering any service to their customers. In fact the customer had directly given the vehicle for repairs at the workshop of respondent No.3 and had taken the delivery of the vehicle from there directly and as such, no liability can be imposed on the answering respondents for the act/omission of the dealer. The procedure adopted by the respondents filing the reply was on the basis of inputs on the service rendered by the dealers along with supporting documents, if any and on the basis of said information, appropriate reply/evidence are prepared and filed before the Forums/Courts believing the same to be correct. In the end, prayer for dismissal of the application has been made.

3.                In his separate reply, respondent No.3 took preliminary objections by assailing the complaint to be misconceived and has been filed to extort money. Respondent No.3 alleged that he has not committed any offence U/s.340 Cr.P.C. as no false statement has been made and no forged and fabricated document has been submitted. The alleged document Ex. R3 does not pertain to respondent nO.3 as the same was never tendered nor produced by it. Rather the said document is genuine document as the same pertains to the car bearing No.PB-10-DG-7443 owned by the complainant.

                   On merits, respondent No.3 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and has alleged that the said statement made by Sh. M.K. Bipin has nothing to do with it as respondent No.3 has filed true and correct written statement and has not made any false statement and the allegations are scandalous and defamatory. In the end, respondent No.3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                In evidence, the applicant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 copy of voter identity card of the complainant, Ex. C2 copy of registration certificate of car No.PB-10-DG-7443 and documents already attached original file i.e. Ex. C3 copy of tax invoice dated 09.11.2011, Ex. C4 copy of car identification and record, Ex. R3 copy of satisfaction report and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for respondent No.1, 2 and 4 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sharmendra Chaudhary, Deputy General Manager of Tata Motors Limited and closed the evidence. Respondent No.3 tendered affidavit Ex. OP3/A of Sh. Indermohan Pal Singh, Law officer along with documents Ex. OP3/A resolution dated 08.02.2016, Ex. OP3/2 copy of service history, Ex. OP3/3 copy of insurance certificate of the vehicle of the complainant and closed the evidence.        

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the applicant, affidavit and annexed documents and written replies along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                By way of the present complaint, the complainant has prayed that the accused/respondents be summoned, matter may be enquired into and appropriate action by passing orders for registration of FIR for making false statement and false documents in judicial proceedings may be taken.

8.                The grievance of the complainant is twofold. Firstly, he has asserted that Mr. M.K. Bipin, Manager Law (respondent No.4) filed a short affidavit accompanying the written statement and in which the following false assertions have been made:

          In para No.5 of the written statement, respondent No.1 and 2 alleged that “the complainant had taken the delivery being issue satisfaction note to the respondent No.3 which is amply clear that complainant was providing all the services to his entire satisfaction and complainant was satisfied to the work done by the complainant.”

          In para No.12 of the written statement, respondent No.1 and 2 alleged that “that on request made by the complainant the complainant was advised to brought the vehicle to the work and when complainant brought the vehicle to the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 had checked the vehicle and carried out necessary repairs to the entire satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant had taken the delivery after being satisfied with the repair jobs done.”

9.       The second grievance of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 and 2 have filed a false and forged document in evidence as Ex. R3 using it to be genuine and stated to have been signed by the complainant. According to the complainant, in fact it is signed by one Rakesh Kumar son of Ram Kukar, R/o. St. 2, New Tajpur Road, Ludhiana having mobile No.9988991812.

10.              During the course of proceedings, the original file bearing complaint No.919 dated 12.11.2012 decided on 22.09.2014 titled as Rakesh Kumar Vs Tata Motors was also summoned.

11.              While leading evidence, the complainant has only relied upon the documents consisting of voter identity card Ex. C1, certification of registration of vehicle in the name of the complainant Ex. C2. The complainant by making a separate statement on 11.02.2021 has relied upon the documents Ex. C3 invoice dated 09.11.2011 issued by opposite party No.3 Dada Motors, Ex. C4 copy of car identification and record and Ex. R3 copy of satisfaction report.

12.              The complainant has alleged falsehood in para No.5 and 12 of the written statement field by opposite party No.1 and 2 but strangely enough, neither the original of written statement nor the affidavit of Mr. M.K. Bipin was formally tendered in evidence during the course of this enquiry. The complainant has also not placed even the certified copies of these documents on record. It is apposite to mention that the predecessor of this Commission had decided the complaint in favour of the complainant, the operative part of which is reproduced as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and the Ops are directed to satisfy the complainant by their own expert driver by plying the car on smooth non-stopable road by using their own fuel. Further Ops are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand only) as compensation  and compensation cost compositely assessed to the complainant.”

However, opposite party No.1 and 2 preferred an appeal FA No.202 of 2015 which was accepted by the Hon’ble State Commission on 21.09.2015 and consequently, the complaint was dismissed. Perusal of the judgment shows that neither the District Forum nor the Hon’ble State Commission returned any findings regarding the falsehood of contents of paras of written statement. The complainant has failed to prove this fact that the contents of para No.5 and 12 of the written reply supported by a short affidavit are false and fabricated. 

13.              It is alleged by the complainant that the document Ex. R3 is false/forged and fabricated and the same is not signed by the complainant. The complainant has specifically mentioned that it is signed by one Rakesh Kumar son of Ram Kukar, St. 2, New Tajpur Road, Ludhiana. First of all, during the proceedings in the complaint or in the present enquiry, the complainant did not make any efforts to cause the production of original of Ex. R3. He has not examined any handwriting expert to prove this fact that the same has not been signed by him. He has also not examined said Rakesh Kumar to substantiate his claim that it was signed by him only and not by the complainant. The evidence led by the complainant is grossly insufficient and inadequate that it would lay any reasonable foundation for the charge in respect of which the prosecution is being sought.

14.              A reference can be made to Chajoo Ram Vs Radhey Shyam in AIR 1971 SC 1367 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India whereby it has been held “The sanction should be granted only in these cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonable probable and likely. To start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without the care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very end.”

15.              The prayer for issuing direction for registration of FIR is beyond the scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. Hence declined.

16.              In a sequel of above discussion, this Commission is of the view that it does not appear that any offence with relation to the proceedings of the court or in respect of the documents produced or given in evidence has been committed and it is also not expedient to accord sanction for prosecution. So the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

17.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                          Member                            Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

Rakesh Kumar Singla Vs Tata Motors                          MA/15/134

Present:       Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate for applicant/complainant.

                   Sh. R.K. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent No.1, 2 and 4.

                   Sh. Kapil Katyal, Advocate for respondent No.3.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

(Monika Bhagat)          (Jaswinder Singh)                      (Sanjeev Batra)                       Member                     Member                                       President         

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.02.2023.

Gobind Ram.