Haryana

Ambala

CC/457/2016

Dr. Pawan Kumar Aryan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Maruti True Value. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 457 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 22.12.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 23.04.2018.

 

Dr.Pawan Kumar ‘Aryan’ s/o Sh.Khajan Singh r/o #8, BBS Marg, Janetpur District Ambala, Haryana.

……. Complainant.

                                  Versus

 

1.The Manager, Maruti True Value, Jagmohan Motors Ltd. Bahalgarh Road, Sonepat-131001, Haryana

2.Sh.Manjeet Singh son of Sh.Mahinder Singh r/o VPO Kilohrad, near Hanuman Mandir Sonepat, Haryana

3.Sh.Baldev Kumar c/o Shiv Shakti Motors, Near Satsang Vihar (Opp. Police Line Ambala Road Jagadhari) Jagadhari-135003, Haryana

4.Sh.Naresh Kumar c/o Shiv Shakti Motors, Near Satsang Vihar (Opp Police Line, Ambala Road Jagadhari) Jagadhari-135003, Haryana.

5.The National President, Sh.J.S.Nayol, All India Car Dealers Association, BFH-56, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088.

6.The District Regional Transport Officer (Vehicle Registering Authorities), District Sonepat, Haryana.

 

….….Opposite parties.

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER       

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OP Nos.1,2 & 5 exparte.

                   Sh.Jaswinder Singh, Adv. for OP Nos. 3 & 4.                                                     Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Incharge for OP No.6.

 

ORDER

                         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant had purchased the used car Wagan-R LXI BS bearing registration No.HR12J-7898 model 1/2007 sold by Maruti True Value run by Op No.1 through its subsidiary associates Op Nos. 3 to 5.   The Op No.3 to 5 have finalized the sale for a commission of Rs.2,000/- under conditions that the commission would be paid after all intact fixture of the car and paperwork would also be provided and accomplished by issuing a receipt undertaking for supply of all fixture, NOC and insurance documents and CNG Kit as per the RC entry of the car.  The Op Nos.1,3,4 & 5 had also assured that insurance, NOC, paper work would require chasis number plate alongwith the CNG kit which would be provided within 7 days and shall be duly fitted in the car as per RC and complete documents alongwith NOC shall also be provided at the time complainant would appear before OP no.6.  The car was purchased for a consideration of Rs.1,20,000/- at Ambala. At the time of delivery the Op Nos. 3 to 5 have disclosed that CNG Kit is most vulnerable part and is fitted on 12.08.2013 as entered in RC and valid through 11.08.2018 and the factory fitted chassis number plate of the car would attached to the CNG kit for registration.  After seven days, the complainant contacted the Ops but it was intimated to him that the process for NOC is under process but the Ops started avoiding the complainant, therefore, he visited the OP No.6 at Sonepat but it told that NOC has been supplied to Op Nos. 1 & 2. Thereafter the complainant contacted OP Nos. 1 to 5  but there was an affidavit in the file with forged signatures of the complainant lying with Op No.6. The Ops denied to provide chasis No.plate and CNG Kit and denied for undoing the crime of forgery of signature. The CNG kit and chasis number plate were not supplied  despite the fact that it was disclosed to him that Op No.2 was real owner of the car and he would personally provide a receipt before Op No.6. The OP No.1 contacted the complainant and informed that NOC of the car would be issued in the name of complainant by OP No.6 and the same is in possession of Op Nos.3 to 5 and same can be collected on payment of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant objected to this but Op No.1 had changed the version that car is NTV and they have no responsibility. The complainant further shocked on receiving of Whats-app photo message regarding insurance documents in the name of Op No.2 and payment was made  for liability for policy on 26.12.2014 and the policy was issued in the name of Op No.2 on 27.12.2014 which shows that OP Nos. 1 to 5 have told a lie. The OPs in collusion with each other indulged into illegal act of deficient services and negligent trade practice for selling of deficient vehicle and also committed the crime of forgery.  The Ops refused to address the genuine concerns for issuance of NOC and the same was issued on forged signatures, since no affidavit ever sworn before any attorney or magistrate for procuring NOC from Op No.6 by complainant. The Ops failed to safeguard the interests of the complainant and they are guilty of deficient services and running exploitative having criminal commercial nexus instead of trade and consumer services.  The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit Annexure CA and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8.

2.                On notice OP Nos. 1,3, 4 and 6 have filed their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as maintainability and concealment of material facts etc. The vehicle was sold to Op No.3 and handedover to him with all fixtures and documents and if there remains any dispute it is between Op No.3 and complainant. The complainant has never contacted OP No.1 to purchase the said car.  No signatures were forged by Op No.1 and it sells the vehicle through true value department within the terms and conditions prescribed by Motor Vehicle Act.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op Nos.3 & 4 in their joint reply have submitted that the registered owner No.2 had sold the car through Op No.1 for consideration of No.120000/- and the expenditure for NOC were to be borne by the complainant-purchaser.  At the time of purchase of car he had made part payment of Rs.40,000/- and amount of Rs.2,000/- as agent commission charges. A printed receipt in Hindi language was duly handedover to the complainant which was signed by him and Op No.4.  After that the delivery of the car was handed over to him with all equipment i.e. LPG Kit etc. The complainant has promised to make the remaining payment within 2 days at Ambala and he made subsequent payment of Rs.40,000/- at Ambala cant. An amount of Rs.30,000/- was paid on 27.12.2014 at Ambala and Rs.10,000/- was duly towards him but he promised that as and when NOC is received he would make the balance amount. The Ops have got prepared the NOC but the complainant became dishonest and started taking undue advantage of legal mind by manipulating another receipt in English language in order to avoid the balance amount of Rs.10,000/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op Nos. 3 & 4. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

                   Op No.6 in its reply has taken preliminary objection such as maintainability, cause of action and mis-joinder etc. of the necessary parties. It is denied that vehicle No.HR12J-7898 is not registered with OP No.6 and the code number is HR-69 but in the complaint the code number has been mentioned as HR-12 which pertains to Rohtak jurisdiction. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. OP Nos. 2 & 5 did not join the proceedings of this and they were proceeded against exparte on 27.02.2017. During the pendency of the complaint OP No.1 also remained absent and it was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated  21.03.2018.  In evidence, the appearing OPs have tendered affidavit Annexure RA and document Annexure R1. The complainant has moved an application for impleading the party Transport Commissioner, Haryana as OP No.7 but the above application was dismissed v.o.d. 19.01.2018.

4.                          In order to prove his version the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Annexure CA on the case file besides documents Annexure C1 (copy of registration certificate in the name of Manjeet Singh/OP No.2), Annexure C2 (copy of resolution of All India Car Dealer Association) Annexure C2 (Deliver receipt), Annexure C3 (membership details of Naresh Kumar/OP No.3), Annexure C4a (receipt), Annexure C4b (another receipt), Annexure C5 (Pamphlet), Annexure C6 (letter dated 01.04.2016 written by the complainant to police authorities), Annexure C7 (postal receipts) and Annexure C8 (copy of legal notice).  In the present complaint the complainant has specifically taken a plea of forged signature in para No.12 of the complainant (there was an affidavit in the file with forged signature of the complainant). In para No.14 of the complaint he has also mentioned that NOC issuance on forged signature is also taken as genuine work done by respondents. The complainant in para No.22 of the complaint has further mentioned that respondents in collusion with each other indulged into illegal act of deficient services and negligent trade practice for selling of deficient vehicle and also committed the crime of forgery to forward their soiled agenda. The complainant in para No.40 of the complaint has mentioned that complainant has been robbed of his money. The OPs also conspired to plan a bigger racket by exaggerated advertisement.   Perusal of the case file reveals that the Op Nos. 3 & 4 in their joint reply in the last lines of para No.1 has mentioned that the complainant has become dishonest and started taking undue advantage of his legal mind and by manipulating another receipt in English language and by leveling false allegations has filed the present complaint.  The complainant has placed on file two receipts Annexure C4a and Annexure C4b. In Annexure C4/a it has been mentioned that chasis plate, CNG kit shall intacted, owner shall provide a receipt fully insured for Oct. 2015  but in Annexure C4b nothing has been mentioned. As per the complainant both the receipts are genuine one. On the other hand OP Nos. 3 & 4 have alleged that the complainant has manipulated the receipt Annexure C-4/A which is type in English by taking undue advantage of his legal mind. OP Nos. 3 & 4 further alleged that they have delivered the receipt Annexure R-1 to the complainant in Hindi language and Op No. 4 is unable to put his signature in English.  

5.                          After going through the record available on the case file one thing is clear that both the parties have levelled serious allegations qua forgery, conspiracy and manipulations of documents etc. It is worthwhile to mention here that the proceedings before this Forum are summarily in nature and the gravity of the facts mentioned in the complaint as well the reply require voluminous  evidence. Therefore, keeping in view the above mentioned fact and circumstances this Forum is of the view that the present complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the matter in question cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction and it requires elaborating and voluminous evidence.  On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as Uco Bank vs. Sh.S.D.Wadhwa, 2013 (4) CLT (NC).

6.                          Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is hereby dismissed as this Forum cannot decide the matter qua forgery, conspiracy and manipulation of documents allegedly mentioned in the complaint as well as in reply. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court (Criminal Court/Civil Court) keeping in view of his allegations, if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Forum shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. . Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on:23.04.2018                                              (D.N. ARORA)                                                                                                         President

 

    

                     (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                            Member

 

 

                          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                            Member