- This topic has 0 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 month, 4 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
UCASE SUMMARY –xxxxx
1. Background
In July 2025, I came in contact with one Inder Preet Singh through Facebook Marketplace regarding the sale of a Hyundai Venue (Registration No. UP16xxxxx), owned by accused1
2. Representations Made
During discussions on WhatsApp, accused2(agent of accused 1)represented that:
– the vehicle was non-accidental, and
– there was no prior insurance claim on the vehicle.
3. Transaction
Relying on these representations, I paid ₹7,84,000 via bank transfer (RTGS) on 17 July 2025 and took delivery of the vehicle at Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi. The vehicle was subsequently transferred in my name.
4. Discovery of Facts
In October 2025, while attempting to renew insurance, I discovered:
– the vehicle had been involved in a major accident; and
– an insurance claim of approximately ₹5.82 lakh had been settled under a policy with ICICI Lombard General Insurance.
This information was never disclosed to me at the time of sale.
5. Supporting Evidence
– WhatsApp chats showing denial of accident/claim
– RTGS payment proof
– ICICI Lombard email confirming claim (~₹5.82 lakh)
– Hyundai service centre inspection indicating accident-related repairs and airbag tampering
6. Airbag / Safety Issue (Supporting Fact)
– Diagnostic scan of the vehicle indicates a crash-related fault (DTC B165000) recorded in the airbag system.
– Despite this, no airbag warning light is displayed on the dashboard.
– This indicates that the safety system is not functioning as expected and requires proper technical verification for suspected tampering
– This issue was never disclosed at the time of sale.
7. Conduct of Seller
Upon confrontation:
– the accused denied the facts;
– subsequently stopped responding to calls and messages. Also didn’t reply to legal notice I sent in December 2025
8. Police History
– Complaint submitted at PS Dwarka Sector-9 on 06 January 2026
– Multiple follow-ups made
– No FIR registered; matter verbally treated as “civil dispute”
– I sent letter to DCP south west district on 6th April ,no action taken
– It has now been advised that my place of residence falls under PS Palam; both PS Dwarka Sector-9 and PS Palam fall under the same DCP (South-West District)
10. Objective
Primary objective is to:
– recover the full amount paid (₹7,84,000), and
– take appropriate criminal action to create pressure for resolution.
11. Constraints / Practical Limitations
– Limited address details of intermediary (only phone number and bank account details available)
– Unable to independently arrange or bring witnesses (e.g., Hyundai personnel) if required in direct complaint proceedings
12. Legal Guidance Received & Clarification Sought
– I have been advised by one lawyer to proceed with a direct complaint case before the Magistrate, instead of pursuing FIR through police.
– However, I am concerned about:
– lack of witnesses
– delay in direct complaint proceedings
– effectiveness of each route in achieving recovery
Clarifications sought:
1. Which route is more effective for early pressure and recovery in this fact situation;
2. Whether submitting a fresh complaint at PS Palam is advisable or necessary at this
-
