MAHESH KUMAR vs MANAGER, MG MOTOR

Petitioner/Complainant has preferred this revision against impugned order dated 08.01.2015, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula (for short, ''State Commission'').

Petitioner filed a consumer complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar (for short, ''District Forum'') with subject; " Regarding Fraudulent treachery committed by respondent" .

It is alleged that Respondent/Opposite Party sold him a new vehicle on 19.2.2013 as personal vehicle having Temporary No.HR99-PI-7869. It is stated, that respondent collected nine blank cheques after obtaining the signature of petitioner, besides cash payment of Rs.17,650/- for sale of the said vehicle. Respondent had promised to get the vehicle insured with permanent registration at the time of sale. The respondent got the vehicle insured as personal vehicle but has not yet got it registered. The respondent is avoiding registration of the vehicle as personal vehicle since the date of its sale. Thus, petitioner has been subjected to mental agony along with financial loss. In the complaint petitioner has prayed, that respondent be directed to get the vehicle registered as personal vehicle and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and suffering.

In its reply Respondent has stated, that at the time of purchase of the vehicle all the requisite documents were handed over to the petitioner. No assurance was given in respect of insurance and registration. Petitioner himself got insured his vehicle as well as got registered the same. In fact, petitioner himself got financed his vehicle from Tata Motors Finance Limited and he intentionally is not making the payment of installments thereof regularly and has filed this false complaint.

District Forum vide order dated 11.11.2014, held that both parties have failed to prove their case and also some complicated questions of facts and law are involved in the complaint and elaborate evidence is required to decide the complaint, which cannot be decided in a summary way. Accordingly, parties were directed to approach civil court, if so advised.

Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the State Commission, which vide impugned order dismissed the appeal and observed, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. If, any fraud has been played with the complainant, he can approach the regular Court as opined by District Forum.

Petitioner appeared in person and argued his case.

I have perused the record.

As observed above, the complaint has been filed by the petitioner regarding fraudulent treachery committed by the respondent. Therefore, the fraudulent act committed by respondent if any, cannot be dealt by the Consumer Fora. For that purpose petitioner can approach the appropriate forum as available to him under the law.

The State Commission in its impugned order observed; " Complainant has failed to prove that assurance was given by the opposite party to get the vehicle insured and registered or that any amount was charged for this purpose. Opposite party has only sold the vehicle and it was the duty of the complainant to get the same registered and insured. It is nowhere alleged that vehicle is not running properly. There is no deficiency in service on the party of the respondent/opposite party. If, any fraud has been played with the complainant he can approach the regular Court as opined by District Forum. Appeal has not merit and the same is hereby dismissed ."

Thus, there being no merit present revision petition stand dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate judicial forum in accordance with the provisions of law.

With these observations, present revision petition stand disposed of.

No order as to cost.