HEMANT GOYAL MOTORS PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR HEMANT GOYAL vs HIMMAT SINGH S/O. SHRI HARDEV SINGH

The complainant/respondent namely Himmat Singh purchased a car make Fiat Punto on 28.01.2011, for a consideration of Rs.5,24,253/-. The case of the complainant is that when he visited the workshop of Dada Motors Pvt. Ltd. at Ludhiana for the second service of the vehicle, they refused to provide service, taking the ground that it was an old vehicle. This was also the case of the complainant in the complaint filed before the District Forum, that he procured the service record of the said vehicle and it came to be discovered that the vehicle was released in the name of the one Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh, to whom it was sold by the petitioner on 27.08.2010 and the said vehicle was registered in his name against registration no. PB-13X-5480. Alleging cheating with him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of complaint seeking refund of the amount alongwith compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner, primarily on the ground that though the vehicle in question was an old vehicle, the said fact was duly conveyed to the complainant at the time of sale of vehicle and an extra discount of Rs.46,958/- was also given to him on account of age of the vehicle.

The District Forum vide its order dated 21.05.2012, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to refund the amount paid by the complainant against receipt of the car and also pay compensation quantify at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac).

Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order of the District Forum, complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of appeal. Vide its order dated 15.05.2014, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The petitioner then approached this Commission by way of Revision Petition No. 2564/2014, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 01.07.2014. This Commission, taking note of the contention of the petitioner that the complainant had submitted a forged certificate of registration before the District Forum showing registration of the vehicle in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh permitted the petitioner to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to approach the concerned District Forum seeking recall of its order dated 21.05.2012 on the ground that a fraud had been played upon it by the complainant by filing a forged certificate purporting to be issued by Registering Authority, Sangroor, showing the said vehicle registered in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh against registration no. PB-13X-5480.

In terms of the liberty granted by this Commission on 01.07.2014, the petitioner approached the concerned District Forum by way of an application. That application came to be dismissed by the District Forum vide its order dated 20.07.2015. The petitioner then approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 01.06.2016. The petitioner is therefore, before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant/respondent had submitted a forged document before the District Forum as was stated by the petitioner before this Commission in the earlier round of the litigation on 01.07.2014. Para 3(d) and (e) of the complaint reads as under:- "(d) That on 16.08.2011 complainant alongwith his vehicle approached the Dada Motors Pvt. Ludhiana for availing the facilities of second free service of his said vehicle who is authorized dealers of Fiat India Automobiles Ltd. But Dada Motors refused to give free service and charged a sum of Rs.6181/- from complainant vide Invoice no. Dada-GR-R11/06525 dated 16.08.2011. The officials of the Dada Motors refused to give second free service by saying that vehicle in question is old one and is not the brand new and as such they are unable to provide free service benefit and it caused great mental shock to complainant. Photocopy of receipt of Dada Motors is attached herewith.

(e) That the complainant on suspicion procured the service record of the said vehicle and it revealed that the said vehicle is having its Registration No. PB-13-X/5480 and it was released in the name of Dalvir Singh son of Harvir Singh and it was sold by opposite party no. 2 on 27.08.2010 and as per the service record the said vehicle was met with an accident and was damaged and it was an old vehicle and opposite party no. 2 sold the said vehicle alleging it to be the brand new and charge the full price of the vehicle."

In reply to the above referred paragraph, the petitioner stated as under, in its written version filed before the District Forum:

(d) That para 3 of sub para (d) is denied for want of knowledge and let the Dada Motors be impleaded as a necessary and proper party.

(e) That para 3 of sub para (e) is correct and this point was also made to the complainant before & after delivery of the car in question, hence it is wrong to allege that the OP No. 2 has sold the 2 hand vehicle knowingly and without nd disclosing the true facts."

The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent is that the registration certificate of the vehicle in question as a motorcycle against registration no. PB-13X-5480 in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh was filed by the petitioner and not by the complainant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforesaid document was filed by the complainant/respondent and not by the petitioner. Thus, it would be difficult to ascertain as to who actually filed the said document before the District Forum though it is not in dispute that the document in question is a forged document, since the vehicle was actually never registered in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh as a car. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to non-suit the complainant on the allegation that he had filed a forged document before the District Forum.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that in the written version, the petitioner did not expressly deny having released the vehicle in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh and therefore, the said sale was admitted in the pleadings of the parties. I do agree that the pleadings as reproduced hereinabove, do gave rise to inference that the petitioner had admitted the alleged sale of the vehicle to Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh on 27.08.2010. However, the admissions can be shown to be factually wrong. There is no document evidencing sale of the aforesaid vehicle by the petitioner to Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh. Admittedly, there is no registration of the said vehicle in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh. There is no insurance of the said vehicle in the name of Mr. Dalbir Singh. There is no evidence of delivery of the said vehicle by petitioner to Mr. Dalbir Singh. Therefore, as a matter of fact, it cannot be disputed that the said vehicle was not sold to Mr. Dalbir Singh S/o Harbir Singh though it is an admitted position that it was an old vehicle having been manufactured in July 2010 as was also recorded in the invoice of the vehicle.

The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether, at the time of purchasing of the vehicle, the complainant was aware or not that the vehicle sold to him was a vehicle manufactured in July, 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the ''Sale Experience Feedback'' form available at page 92-93 of the paper book. The said document contains comments purporting to be of the customer and bears signature of the complainant in a box meant for his signature. The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant does not know English and that is why he did not know what had been written as comments, though the aforesaid column does bear his signature. In my view, in case the complainant did not know English, he was not likely to sign, the ''feedback form'' without getting the comments above his signature and read-over and explained to him by some other person. More importantly, the month of manufacture of the vehicle has also been mentioned in the invoice of the vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that while purchasing the vehicle, the complainant was not aware that the vehicle was manufactured in year July, 2010. Having purchased the vehicle, knowing fully well that it had been manufactured in July, 2010 and having availed discount of Rs.46,958/-, the complainant cannot be allowed to say that he was not aware of the age of the vehicle. Having purchase a vehicle which was old by about five months, at the time of purchase by him, he cannot have a grievance on account of the age of the vehicle.

For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders are set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed, with no order as to cost.