AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE case of the complainant in short is that he purchased a Maruti-800 car from OP-1 on 5.9.1997 for a total consideration of Rs. 1,44,500/-. After purchase he produced the relevant documents to the Registering Authority for registering the car in his name. At the time of physical inspection by the Registering Authority it transpired that the chassis of the car did not bear any number and so the latter refused to register the car. THE matter was brought to the notice of OP-1 who assured that they would obtain necessary papers from the erstwhile owner, one Mr. Sanjay Agarwal. In February, 1998 the said Sanjay Agarwal who was OP-2 in the proceeding before the Forum executed an Indemnity Bond thereby undertaking to indemnify the Registering Authority from all actions etc. in the event of transfer of ownership of the car in the name of the complainant. THE complainant despatched a letter to OP-1 enclosing copy of letter issued by the Motor Vehicles Department but the former (i.e. OP-1) refused to accept the same and also refused to make refund of the price of the said car.
THE case was contested by the O.Ps. by filing a joint written statement wherein it has been stated that the Indemnity Bond has been obtained from OP-2 by exercise of coercion and threat. Upon consideration of the materials on record the Forum found that the car had some defects for which the complainant could not get it registered in his name in accordance with law. The complainant had purchased it from the OP-1 for valuable consideration. OP-2 has described himself as the owner of the vehicle in the Indemnity Bond though the complainant had paid money to OP-1. The complainant has filed Annexure ''A'' to show payment of Rs. 1,44,500/- to OP-1. The said receipt was granted by one of the partners of OP-1. The Indemnity Bond executed by OP-2 supports the contention of the complainant. The O.Ps. have, however, come with a plea that the said Indemnity Bond was obtained by threat and coercion. There is, however, no material to support their case. The car is lying idle with the complainant and it could not be registered in his name because it does not bear any chassis number. It appears that the Forum has dealt with the matter elaborately and came to the clear conclusion that the O.Ps. were required to make refund of the consideration money together with interest. We have carefully examined the materials on record and the judgment. We find that the appeal is without merit and as such it is liable to be dismissed which we hereby do. In the result, the appeal fails and be dismissed on contest. Appeal dismissed.