Complainant Must Provide Clear Evidence Within Limitation Period For Claims Made: Telangana State Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant exchanged his Maruti 800 car for Rs. 30,000 while buying a Maruti Alto 800 from the dealer. When registering the Alto, the RTA found that the Maruti 800 still in the complainant's name, resulting in an extra tax charge of Rs. 14,890. The complainant blamed the dealer for negligence and service failure. After sending a legal notice for compensation, which went unanswered, the complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission, which was accepted. The District Commission directed the dealer to refund Rs.14,890 along with compensation of Rs.50,000 and Rs.1,000 as litigation costs. Aggrieved by the District Commission's order, the dealer appealed before the State Commission of Telangana.

Contentions of Dealer

The dealer denied the complainant's claims, stating the complaint is baseless and lacks merit. It was argued that the complainant sold a Maruti 800 for Rs. 30,000, and the same was adjusted against the purchase of an Alto. The dealer argued that they never promised to transfer the Maruti in their name and clarified they often buy old cars to promote new car sales, scrapping unroadworthy ones. They denied liability for additional tax paid by the complainant, calling it baseless. The complaint was termed a misuse to gain wrongfully, and they requested its dismissal with costs.

Observations by the State Commission

The State Commission observed that the complainant gave his Maruti 800 car to the dealer in exchange for an Alto car. The dealer admitted they did not register the Maruti 800 in their name, nor did they sell it, leaving it damaged in their yard. At the time of registration, it was discovered that the Maruti 800 was still in the complainant's name, which led to the collection of 14% tax on the Alto. However, the commission highlighted that the complainant did not provide any proof of selling the Alto car. Without such evidence, the Commission could not assume the Alto was sold. It was highlighted that the complainant had enough time to prove the sale of the Alto, and the complaint was time-barred due to the lack of evidence. The State Commission ruled that the District Commission did not consider these facts and hence allowed the appeal. The District Commission's order was set aside and the dealer was allowed to withdraw the statutory deposit after the revision period.

Case Title: The Chairman, Sri Jayarama Motors Pvt., Ltd Vs. Mohd. Shabbir

Case Number: F.A. No. 119/2020