G.K. Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs Ajay Kumar Singor & Anr.

The present Revision Petition has been filed challenging the order of the State Commission in FA/631/2019 dated 10.10.2019 whereby the appeal was dismissed on the ground of delay. It is submitted that the delay was only for 61 days and, therefore, ought to have been condoned. The arguments on the merits of the case are also addressed by the Ld. Counsel and it is submitted that the mention of the date 21.01.2016 as the date of sale was just a typographical mistake and for that it has been unduly penalized.

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent/Complainant had purchased a car from a Petitioner on 19.03.2016 and an invoice of the same had also been issued by the Petitioner in his favour. When he subsequently took his vehicle to the show room on 28.09.2017, he was told to purchase a roadside assistance policy. He then paid a sum of ₹1842/- and accordingly the roadside assistance policy was issued to him. On perusal of this policy he learnt that the date of the sale of the vehicle was mentioned as 22.01.2016 and also the warranty of the car had started w.e.f. 22.01.2016. He got perplexed as to why the vehicle is shown to have been sold on 22.01.2016 when he had purchased it only on 19.03.2016. He learnt that the vehicle had already been sold to some other person on 22.01.2016 and it remained in his possession during that period and subsequently the vehicle was re-sold to him as a brand new vehicle. Being aggrieved by the act of Petitioner he filed the Complaint. The District Forum issued the notice to all the Opposite Parties. The Petitioner, however, did not appear and thereafter he was served through publication. Even after publication he failed to appear. Parties thereafter led the evidences before the District Forum and the District Forum relying on the documents like Vehicle Bill, RTO Registration, Road Assistance Certificate and other relevant documents on record reached to the conclusion that the Petitioner who was the dealer of the Respondent No. 2, had re-sold the vehicle to him as a new vehicle although the vehicle had already been sold on 22.01.2016 to some other person.

The Petitioner in appeal alleged before the State Commission that they learnt of the order of the District Forum only when the Opposite Party-2 i.e. manufacturing company of the vehicle had informed them of such order. Thereafter they applied for the certified copy and filed the said appeal.

The State Commission vide impugned order dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay of 61 days in filing the appeal.

From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the address of the Petitioner in the present Petition is the same which was given by the Complainant in his Complaint. Therefore, it is clear that when the notice of complaint was sent to the Petitioner, it was sent at the correct address of the Petitioner. This notice was sent to him for 08.03.2018. Although the Petitioner alleges that the notice was not received by him but since the notice was sent on the correct address of the Petitioner and it was not received back by the District Forum, there is a presumption of due service upon the Petitioner. The Petitioner did not attend the proceedings of the District Forum even after the publication of the complaint in the newspaper and from the background of this case, the State Commission had been right in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay.

I find no perversity or illegality in the impugned order. Although the appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. However, since the Ld. Counsel has addressed arguments on merits I have gone through the merits of the present case. From the documents Ex. A-3, A-4 and A-5 it was proved before the District forum that the sale of the vehicle and starting of warranty was from 22.01.2016. Neither there was a contention on behalf of the Petitioner nor was any document on record of the District Forum, to conclude that date of staring of warranty and first sale on 22.01.2016 was a typing mistake. Further, in the absence of any contrary evidence the District Forum has rightly relied on documents placed on record, which are documents issued by the Petitioner itself and had passed the order. The Petitioner, therefore, does not have any case on merits.

The present Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed in limini. A copy of the order be sent to the District Forum as well as to the Complainant.