Karnataka

Bangalore 1st & Rural Additional

CC/1623/2018

Sri. Parameshwara.N - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Lakshmi Hyundai - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. G.N.Subramani

12 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE BENGALURU RURAL AND URBAN I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM , I FLOOR, BMTC, B BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-27
 
Complaint Case No. CC/1623/2018
( Date of Filing : 01 Oct 2018 )
 
1. Sri. Parameshwara.N
S/o. Late. M.Narayanappa, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.304, 7th Cross, Jakkur Layout, Bengaluru 560 064.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, Lakshmi Hyundai
A Unit of Sri. Jayalakshmi Automotives Pvt.Ltd.Building No.102/3, Hebbal, Bellary Road, Bengaluru-560 092. Phone:080 23095152
2. Hyundai Motor India Ltd., HMIL
Rep.by the regional Manager South regional office-4, Office situated at 6th floor Golden heights Buildings, No.102, 59th C- cross, 4th M Block, Rajaji nagar, Bengaluru-560 010. Ph: No.080 69000252
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B., PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH.D., B.Com., LL.B. MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 12 Oct 2018
Final Order / Judgement

CCNO.1623 of 2018 

Date:12/10/2018

Orders on maintainability

On perusal of records it is observed that the sale invoice for the vehicle in question reveals that the said vehicle was sold on 07.11.2015 and same has registered with the concerned RTO on 09.11.2015 and insurance for the said vehicle was purchased on 09.11.2015. The history of the vehicle from the paint and body repainting of the vehicle in question.  Op indicates that the said vehicle had met with an accident on 26.10.2016 and by that time vehicle had run nearly 172 km for which insurance amount was also claimed. Knowing fully well about the said issues, Ops have sold the vehicle to the complainant by suppressing the material facts is nothing but a fraud, cheating and misrepresentation of the facts. All this aspects fall under the provision of IPC, which cannot be decided under summary proceedings.

Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC) has observed that matter relating to forgery and fraud cannot be decided in the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, which are summary in nature.

 The vehicle in question as per the complaint was purchased on 07.11.2015 and from the beginning itself, complainant faced the problems with the vehicle, it clearly shows that the cause of action has began from the date of purchase itself. Hence date of purchase i.e., 07.11.2015 be treated as starting point of cause of action for the limitation purpose. From that day onwards, complaint has to be filed within 2 years as per the 24 A of C.P. Act.   Mere making correspondence does not give rise to fresh cause of action and mere issue of legal notice or representation to competent authority does not arrest time, as held in Jet Airways India Ltd., Vs. Satyaprakash Bansal, Chhattisgarh State Commission Dispute Redressal commission IV (2017) CPJ 19B (CN) (Chha). The trial of the complaint require voluminous evidence and full pledged evidence is to be recorded. Hence complainant cannot be decided summarily. On the ground the complaint is dismissed

 

MEMBER                PRESIDENT

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. H.R.SRINIVAS, B.Sc. LL.B.,]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. SURESH.D., B.Com., LL.B.]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.