RANJAY TREHAN Vs. JAGAT MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant who wanted to purchase a luxury car was shown a BMW car by Respondent No.1 Jagat Motors. The said car was allegedly shown with respondent No.2 Bird BMW Bird Automobile, based at Gurgaon. The complainant who liked the car, allegedly paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Mr. Rahul Pandey, AGM of Respondent No.2 Bird BMW. The balance amount of Rs.16,75,000/- was paid to respondent No.1. The car allegedly was delivered to the complainant / petitioner at Dwarka. The said car was a preowned car, the previous owner being Boutique International. Form No. 20 and 30 purporting to be signed by Boutique International were supplied to the complainant. However, Registration Certificate of the car was not supplied to him. On an enquiry made by the complainant, he came to know that the car was still registered in the name of Boutique International. An FIR was thereafter lodged by the respondent No.2 Bird BMW alleging that Mr. Rahul Pandey has sold the car, without their knowledge. It is alleged that a fraud was committed with the complainant and he was duped of Rs.17,25,000/-. Initially the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, which dismissed the aforesaid complaint for want of pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction. Thereafter, the complaint was instituted with the State Commission at Delhi.

(2.) The State Commission, vide impugned order dated 19.7.2018 dismissed the complaint, primarily on the grounds that the State Commission at Delhi does not have the jurisdiction in the matter and allegations of cheating, forgery and fraud were involved, which could not be adjudicated in a summary procedure. Being aggrieved, the petitioner/complainant is before this Commission.

(3.) Admittedly, the car in question was a preowned car, its previous owner being M/s. Boutique International. The allegation in the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 Bird NMW with police station, Civil Lines Gurgaon is that the car in question was taken by Mr. Rahul Pandey on the pretext of giving a test drive to some prospective customer but he did not return with the car. This is also the case of the complainant / appellant that the car in question was shown to him by Mr. Rahul Pandey. He also claims to have paid Rs.50,000/- to Mr. Rahul Pandey and the balance Rs.16,75,000/- to Jagat Motors. No receipt of Rs.50,000/- alleged to have been given by the complainant to Mr. Rahul Pandey has been filed, though, a copy of the receipt purporting to be issued by Jagat Motors while receiving Rs.16,75,000/- in cash has been filed. It is thus evident that no payment was made by the complainant directly to respondent No.2 M/s. Bird BMW. The car was shown to him by Mr. Rahul Pandey, Rs. 50,000/- is alleged to have been given by him to Mr. Rahul Pandey and the delivery of the car is also alleged to have been taken by him from Mr. Rahul Pandey. Despite that Mr. Rahul Pandey was not impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint. In its written version filed before the District Forum, respondent No.2 had alleged that Mr. Rahul Pandey had committed theft of the car as well as all the documents and sold the said car to the complainant, misappropriating the amount received by him. Mr. Rahul Pandey was also arrested by the police on the FIR lodged by Bird BMW. It is also alleged in the reply filed by respondent No. that the complainant is in connivance with Jagat Motors and Rahul Pandey.