FAQIR CHAND SIKRI vs G.S. OBERIO (PRINCE)

We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sh. G.S. Oberoi, the respondent in person. Sh. Faqir Chand Sikri, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum. His case is as follows. The complainant purchased a second hand Alto car, on 07.08.2012 from G.S. Oberoi, the OP against payment of Rs.1,73,000/-. At the time of purchase, the Auto meter of the car was showing reading as 47,000 kms. The complainant/petitioner immediately got the service and repairs of the car done from Magic Auto (P) Ltd. before putting the car in normal use.

At the Magic Auto (P) Ltd. it transpired that the said car was last serviced from the said service station, on 12.10.2011 and had a reading of 60715 kms. It is alleged that the car was sold in a fraudulent manner by telling that it had run only 47000 kms., on 07.08.2012, but it had already run 60715 kms. upto 12.10.2011. The opponent/dealer contested this case before the District Forum. The District Forum passed the following order:- "There is no denial of the fact that the car was seen by the complainant before purchasing it. There is full liberty to satisfy itself about its working, its age, giving thereby it was sold on as is where is basis. It is also an admitted fact admitted by the complainant in the course of the arguments that car was sold by the owner just one month before its purchase by the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,44,000/-. So there cannot be a price difference of Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the complainant. The general presumption is that a dealer who is buying the car for Rs.1,44,000/- shall spend something before selling it and he had bought it has a business for earning profit, he has a right to earn some profit on this vehicle but the only deficiency in service is that there was a tampering in the meter reading. Though the complainant should have got it checked before purchasing it but still when we buy a product, there is no presumption of any tampering and if it is found, by a reliable and cogent evidence that the vehicle speedometer is tampered with by the respondent or through him he got the vehicle arranged for the complainant then the respondent who has received the payment is guilty of deficiency in service and the complainant should be adequately compensated for this deficiency in service.

Considering entire facts and circumstances a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to the complainant which shall be inclusive of litigation expenses".

The State Commission relied upon these observations and did not enhance the amount of compensation. It must be borne in mind that the dealer had purchased the car from Sh. Gurmeet Singh. Sh. Gurmeet Singh was arrayed as one of the parties before the District Forum, but during the appeal he was not made a party. Moreover, the complainant has got no privity of contract with Sh. Gurmeet Singh. The whole responsibility lies on the shoulders of the dealer. He is to explain, why there is tampering in the speedometer of the car. The previous owner is answerable to the dealer only. The dealer can sue him. The vehicle remained in possession of the Opposite Party for one month. The complainant was taken for a ride because he had purchased the car for Rs.1,73,000/- believing that it had run upto 47000 kms only, whereas it had covered more than 60000 kms. on the date of purchase. The onus of proof lies on the dealer. It was his duty to show to the Commission that when he had purchased the car, it had run to how many kms. That record is not available. This record should have been prepared when the car was purchased from Sh. Gurpreet Singh. The Opposite Party has stepped into the shoes of Sh. Gurpreet Singh. He is liable for the omissions and commissions committed by both of them.

Consequently, we enhance the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. The compensation of Rs.35,000/- be paid within a period of 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @ 9% till realization. The amount already paid/deposited shall stand adjusted.