M/S. SAMTA MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. NARENDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition has been filed against impugned Order dtd. 3/8/2017 passed by the Ld. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana in First Appeal No. 805 of 2016 vide which the Order of the Ld. District Forum was affirmed.

(2.) The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant, a resident of Village Barwani, Sonepat, purchased a Hyundai Verna Fluidic Diesel vehicle (Temporary No. HR-99-QF-Temp-0012) from the Opposite Party No. 1 for Rs.9,24,888.00, out of which Rs.4,50,000.00was paid in cash. The Opposite Party No. 1 assured the Complainant that the remaining amount would be financed, the vehicle would be insured with HDFC ERGO General Insurance, and the necessary documents, including the original bill and invoice, would be provided for registration with the Motor Vehicles Authority in Sonepat. However, on the purchase date, 31/12/2013, only a temporary registration number was issued (Ex.C.1), and the vehicle was delivered. Contrary to assurances, the Opposite Party No. 1 insured the vehicle with Reliance General Insurance (Policy No. 200532311027392, valid until 30/12/2014) instead of HDFC ERGO. Despite the Complainant's multiple requests and a Legal Notice, the original bill and invoice were not provided. When contacted, an agent of the Opposite Party No. 1 informed the Complainant that the vehicle account had been incorrectly entered under ICICI Bank and assured that a corrected bill would be prepared and sent. However, the ICICI Bank refused to release the bill, and the Opposite Party No. 1 claimed the vehicle had been financed by Sundaram Finance on 2/3/2014, instead of 31/12/2013. The Complainant alleges negligence, stating that the delay and improper financing arrangements led to the inability to register the vehicle, resulting in significant mental agony, financial loss, and inconvenience. Despite repeated attempts to resolve the issue, the original bill and invoice necessary for registration remain unavailable, leaving the Complainant unable to use the vehicle effectively. Consequently, the Complainant filed his Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Sonepat.

(3.) The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dtd. 18/7/2016 partly allowed the Complaint. The Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1 then filed Appeal before the Ld. State Commission, which vide the impugned Order dtd. 3/8/2017 dismissed the same, and affirmed the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts of the impugned Order are set out as below -