BEFORE THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION , NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO __________ OF 2022
IN THE MATTER OF :
1. Avtarsing Gurudayalsing Sodi,
R/o Sambhaji Chowk,
New Cidco, Nanded,
Tq & Dist. Nanded. …. Petitioner
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
Sujaya Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.,
Latur Phata, Nanded.
2. The Manager, Kothari Hyundai,
Pune, Plot No. 13/1-A,
Mundwa Kharadi Byepass,
Kharadi, Pune.
3. Hyundai Motor India Ltd.,
Irungattukottai, NH No.4,
Tq.Sriperumbudur,
Dist. Kanchipuram
State Tamilnadu - 602117 ……Respondents
REVISION PETITION UNDER SEC 58 (i) OF THE CONSUMER
PROTECTION ACT, 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE HON’BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
DATED 13.01.2022 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. A/85/2021
1. The Petitioner by way of the instant Revision Petition seeks to
challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra State
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra,
Bench at Aurangabad, in First Appeal No. A/85/2021. By way
of the impugned order the State Commission has been
pleased to dismiss the First Appeal and confirmed the order
passed by the District Commission.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
The brief facts of the case are as follows: -
a) That the Complainant/Petitioner is residing at CIDCO, Nanded.
Since his children are residing at Hingoli and Dhule for
education as well for business, farming purpose as well to visit
the daughter and to visit Batala, Punjab which is his native
place, he purchased an i20 Asta Car from Respondent No. 1
bearing No. MH-26-AK-6113 from Sujaya Hyundai Showroom,
Nanded by paying cash payment of Rs.8,58,960/- from the
Respondent No. 1. The Complainant had obtained loan of
Rs.8,58,960/- from Godavari Urban Bank, Nanded and paid to
the Respondent No. 1. Similarly, while purchasing the vehicle,
the Complainant/Petitioner had obtained insurance by paying
premium of Rs.30,000/-.
b) That, Since the Complainant/Petitioner purchased vehicle,
defect was in existence in the vehicle and hence he could not
use the vehicle. It is mandatory on the part of Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 to provide good services. However, since there
was defect in the vehicle, he dropped vehicle in the service
center of Respondent to get the vehicle defect free. They did
not repair the vehicle and committed deficiency in service
resulting in committing error.
c) That, On 03.05.2016, the Complainant/Petitioner lodged a
complaint with Respondents. The said vehicle was purchased
by the Complainant/Petitioner on 14.04.2016 from the
Respondents. The Complainant/Petitioner had deposited the
vehicle for repair on 03.05.2016 and 16.05.2016 with the
Respondents. Since then the Respondents did not repair the
vehicle. Since beginning, while driving the vehicle, the vehicle
was pulling some times at the left side and sometimes right
side, which was hazardous for the life. On 17.07.2016 and
prior to that, the Complainant/Petitioner by meeting the
Respondents time to time had requested to get the vehicle
defective vehicle repaired. On 23.06.2016, the Respondents
informed the Complainant/Petitioner that since the defect
occurred in the vehicle is a manufacturing defect, it cannot be
made defect-free in any case. The Respondent No. 1 by
having dialogue with Respondent No. 2 informed the
Complainant/Petitioner that, since the vehicle could not be
made defect free, the vehicle will be replaced for which the
Complainant/Petitioner was advised to wait till 18.08.2016.
d) That, again on 10.08.2016 and 22.08.2016, a complaint came
to be lodged with the Respondents. However, the
Respondents did not pay heed to the requests of
Complainant/Petitioner. On 13.09.2016 the
Complainant/Petitioner personally met the Respondent and
enquired about the progress on the complaints lodged on
10.08.2016 and 22.08.2016. However, the Respondents
arrogantly replied and threatened the Complainant/Petitioner
that, “in case the vehicle is repaired, you may travel
anywhere but till then, you will have to go by walk. Our
Showroom neither invited nor called upon you to buy a
vehicle”. With this behavior of Respondent, the complaint got
mentally tortured. Since the vehicle was not delivered within
time, he was constrained to take a vehicle from somebody
else. The vehicle of the Complainant/Petitioner has remained
with the Respondent since 16.05.2016 and has been sold by
them and the Complainant/Petitioner has been deprived from
his right of enjoyment.
e) That, the Respondents have committed deficiency in service
and duties. Complainant/Petitioner's complaint has been
disregarded by showing negligence. Left with no choice, being
a last resort, the applicant had lodged a complaint in writing
on 13.09.2016. After that, on 19.09.2016, a notice was given
that self-immolation will be done in front of the office of the
Respondent. After the notice of self-immolation, as per the
instructions of Superintendent of Police Nanded and Collector,
Nanded, discussion was held in the showroom of the
Respondent through the Police Inspector, Nanded Rural and it
was assured that the entire purchase price of the vehicle
would be refunded to the Complainant/Petitioner within a
month and hence based on the assurance, postponed the self-
immolation. On 23.10.2016 an intimation was given to fulfill
the promise given by the Respondent and informed to return
the price of the vehicle.
f) That, though the said vehicle was standing in the name of
Complainant/Petitioner, instead of getting it repaired and
returning to the Complainant/Petitioner, the Respondent No. 1
had sold the said vehicle to one Balaji Pandurang Rajankar,
resident of Latur through Mahesh Shivappa Khanapure for
Rs.7,00,000/- and also handed over the possession of vehicle
to him on 05.10.2016. When the Complainant/Petitioner
enquired with the Respondent time to time, it was falsely told
to him that the vehicle is under repair and sold the vehicle
directly and got it disposed-off. The respondent has deceived
the Complainant/Petitioner by erasing the previous number of
the vehicle and putting a new number as MH-26-TC-77 on it.
The Respondent in collusion with the buyer of the vehicle
deposited cheque No. 189897 dated 11.11.2016 on
19.11.2016, drawn on Solapur Janta Sahakari Bank, Branch
Udgir in the account of Complainant/Petitioner maintained
with Godavari Urban Bank, which without getting realized got
dis-honoured. On 09.12.2016, around 10.30 AM Balaji
Rajankar, R/o. Latur called up on the mobile of
Complainant/Petitioner bearing No. 9272300227 from his
mobile No. 9823074000 and told that the Car bearing No. MH-
26-AK-6113 belonged to Complainant/Petitioner has been sold
to him by Respondent No. 1 and the said car is in his
possession and also enquired about the cheque dis-honouring.
The Complainant/Petitioner got confused on hearing this and
immediately rushed to Latur to search for vehicle where the
vehicle was parked on which bogus number was put as MH-
26-TC-77. On 09.12.2016 and 10.12.2016 the
Complainant/Petitioner had lodged a complaint against
Respondent and others with Nanded Rural Police Station and
Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Latur under Section 406, 420 and
467 of Indian Penal Code. When the police authorities
conducted enquiry, it was revealed that the said vehicle was
sold without the consent of Complainant/Petitioner and the
possession has been handed over.
g) That, the Respondent had received the cash amount of
Rs.7,00,000/- against the sale of vehicle and the possession
of vehicle was handed over on 05.10.2016. While the inquiry
was pending, the Complainant/Petitioner was instructed to
take the vehicle by pretending that the vehicle was in good
condition and ready to be handed over to the
Complainant/Petitioner to cover up the criminal offence.
h) That, the Complainant/Petitioner had purchased the said
vehicle on 13.04.2016 by obtaining loan of Rs.8,58,960/-
from Godavari Urban Co-Op. Bank, CIDCO. The Respondent
did not get the vehicle repaired within stipulated time period
nor has returned the amont. Hence the Bank had issued a
legal notice on the Complainant/Petitioner and instructed to
deposit the loan amount along with interest to the tune of
Rs.1,25,358/- for which the Respondents are liable and
responsible.
i) That, the applicant is a consumer of the Respondent and since
beginning till the date of sale of vehicle, the Respondents has
committed deficiency in service and duty and by playing fraud
on the applicant and pretending that the vehicle is in
showroom for repairs, by putting bogus number on the vehicle
sold the same directly, gave actual and physical possession
and recovered the amount from the buyer. This attitude and
behavior of the Respondent is of serious nature and liable to
be punished. The Respondents had mentally and physically
tortured the Complainant/Petitioner and caused loss of
Rs.4,00,000/-. Similarly, the Respondent is liable and
responsible for the outstanding amount as shown in the notice
issued by the Bank. Since the Respondent had handed over
the possession of the vehicle to Balaji Ranjankar on
05.10.2016, the question of taking back the vehicles does not
arise.
j) That thereafter the Complainant/Petitioner had issued a legal
notice dated 20.02.2017 by Registered Post to both the
Respondents. Both the Respondents have received the said
notice on 22.02.2017. However, neither both the Respondents
did not reply the said notice nor refunded the cost of vehicle
amounting to Rs.8,58,410/- plus compensation towards loss
caused amount to Rs.5 Lakhs i.e. total Rs.13,58,410 to the
Complainant/Petitioner.
k) That the Complainant/Petitioner thereafter filed a Consumer
Complaint No. 169 of 2017 before the District Forum, Nanded.
A Translated copy of the Consumer Complaint No. 169 of
2017 filed before the District Forum, Nanded is annexed
herewith and marked as Annexure P-1
l) That the respondents appeared and filed their Written
Statement in Consumer Complaint No. 169 of 2017 filed
before the District Forum, Nanded.
A Translated copy of the Written Statement filed by the
Respondent No. 1 is annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure P-2
A true copy of the Written Statement filed by the Respondent
No. 2 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-3
m)That the Complainant/Petitioner lead Evidence on Affidavit. A
translated copy of the Evidence on Affidavit by the Petitioner
is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure P-4
n) The Ld. District Commission, Nanded dismissed the Consumer
Complaint filed by the Petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2020.
o) Being Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner on 19.03.2021
filed a First Appeal No. 85 of 2021 before the Maharashtra
State Commission, Bench at Aurangabad. A Copy of the First
Appeal No. 85 of 2021 filed before the Maharashtra State
Commission, Bench at Aurangabad is annexed herewith and
marked as Annexure P-5
p) That on 13.01.2022, the Ld. Maharashtra State Commission,
Bench at Aurangabad dismissed the First Appeal filed by the
Petitioner. (IMPUGNED ORDER)
q) Hence the present Revision Petition.
3. GROUNDS
The Petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the Ld
State Commission on the basis of the following grounds: -
I. The Ld. State commission erred in dismissing the complaint
on the ground that complaint is criminal in nature whereas it
may be seen from the pleadings that the said car purchased
by the Petitioner was never given to the petitioner. On the
contrary it was sold to some other buyer. The case at hand is
a clear case of deficiency of service.
II. The learned forum failed to consider that, the petitioner has
purchased four wheeler vehicle on 14.04.2016 and within 20
days i.e. on 03.05.2016 petitioner gave complaint to
respondent and on 16.05.2016, petitioner given / submitted
his vehicle for repairing to the respondents and till today
respondents had not return the vehicle to the petitioner.
III. The learned forum failed to consider that, on 23.06.2021,
respondents informed the petitioner that, there is fault /
defect in the vehicle and same will not be removed
permanently, which means there was / is manufacturing
defect in the said vehicle.
IV. The learned forum failed to consider that, though the
petitioner is the owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1
without informing appellant, without permission of petitioner
sold the said vehicle to one Balaji Ranjankar on 05.10.2016,
the act of Respondent No.1 is illegal and against the law.
V. The learned forum failed to consider that, in the investigation
of police it is came on record that, Respondent No.1 has sold
the vehicle and given possession of vehicle to Mr. Ranjankar
without permission of petitioner which amounts misconduct of
service.
VI. The learned forum failed to considered that, the petitioner has
purchased the vehicle by obtaining huge loan from the bank
and due to negligence of respondent, petitioner could not use
the vehicle since from purchase and bank has started
recovery process against petitioner.
VII. The learned forum failed to consider that, Mr. Ranjankar has
given his statement on affidavit before the Ld. Forum from
which it is clear that, the Respondent No.1 has sold the said
vehicle of appellant to the Mr. Ranjankar without permission
of petitioner and till today petitioner has not received price of
vehicle.
VIII. That, the petitioner had send legal notice to respondent on
20/02/2017 and same was received by respondent on
22.02.2017, even though, the respondents have not returned
the vehicle or price of vehicle.
IX. That, the learned Forum ought to have taken into
consideration the oral as well as documentary evidence
produced by the appellant
PRAYER
In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, this
Hon’ble Commission may be pleased to, -
(a) set aside the order dated 13.01.2022 passed by the
Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra, Bench at Aurangabad, in First
Appeal No. A/85/2021;
(b) pass any other such order as this Hon’ble Commission may
deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.
Petitioner Through
[Amol Suryawanshi & Vatsalya Vigya]
Advocates for the Petitioner
J- 504,RG Residency,
Sector 120, Noida-201307
+919911304880
NEW DELHI
DATED: 16.06.2022
