The petitioner complains that though he has purchased a 2014 model Maruthi Swift Motor car bearing Regn. No.KL-18-M 3772, the vehicle is not being transferred to his name. All the documents necessary for effecting such transfer have been submitted. The case of the petitioner is that, he is a person doing business in tyres and automobile spare parts. The petitioner had purchased the car from the second respondent. On a verification of all the original documents like the Registration Certificate, invoice, Insurance, Tax Certificate as well as Sale Certificate etc, he was satisfied that, there were no liabilities on the vehicle. It was for the said reason that the same was purchased. According to the petitioner, the vehicle is not being transferred to his name for the reason that, the second respondent who had sold the vehicle to him is a person against whom various complaints are pending investigation. He therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions for getting the vehicle registered in his name. 2. Advocate K.Jayesh Mohankumar appears for the 4th respondent. A statement has also been filed, stating that the second respondent had obtained finance from the 4th respondent for the purchase of a Maruti Swift ZDI (diesel) car. The loan was sanctioned and an amount of ₹7,11,000/-
was transferred to the account of the dealer. However, the second respondent managed to receive the amount so transferred to the dealer, after cancelling his booking. He had taken care to retain the initial booking amount with the dealer. Thereafter, he approached another bank and obtained finance for purchasing the same vehicle through the same dealer. After taking the delivery of the car, he sold the vehicle to the petitioner for a substantially lesser amount. In the process, the second respondent is alleged to have pocketed about ten lakhs of rupees. Exhibit P12 is referred to by the counsel to point out that, there are as many as five vehicles involved where the second respondent has played similar fraud on different banks. It is pointed out that respondents 3 and 5 are the other banks cheated in the same manner.
3. The Government Pleader on instructions submit that, crime No.255 of Elathur Police Station, Kozhikode City has been registered against the second respondent, and the investigation is progressing. The first respondent has on the basis of the complaints received, commenced an enquiry. The same would be completed with due notice to the banks involved also, after hearing all the parties.
4. Heard. In view of the circumstances narrated above, it is only appropriate that, the authorities conduct a proper enquiry into the activities of the second respondent and finds out the extent of the fraud, if any, committed by him. It is likely that many other banks or financial institutions have also been similarly cheated. The counsel for the 4th respondent points out that, the vehicle that was registered in name of the second respondent on 03.03.2014 has been purchased by the petitioner on 05.03.2014.
According to the petitioner, an amount of ₹5,80,000/- was paid by him to the second respondent at the time of purchase. Thereafter, he appears to have obtained a loan of ₹4,00,000/- from the third respondent in the name of the second respondent. The said amount has been received by the second respondent. Though the second respondent had issued a cheque for ₹4,00,000/- in favour of the petitioner, the said cheque has been dishonoured. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner has lost nearly ₹10,00,000/- in the bargain.
5. The scenario that has unfolded underscores the necessity of a thorough investigation into the entire episode. The said investigation would have to be undertaken by the Police Authorities. If necessary, the first respondent shall follow up the investigation to see that the same is conducted properly, by making a formal complaint. The first respondent shall in the mean time enquire into the incident and take a decision on the application for registration submitted by the petitioner, after hearing respondents 3, 4 and 5.
This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the first respondent to conduct an enquiry on Exhibit P15 complaint of the petitioner after hearing all the parties concerned. The enquiry shall be completed, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE kkj