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