Final Order 14

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
1 of page no. 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. VAIBHAV KUMAR,
CIVIL JUDGE, NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
CS No. 290/24
CNR No. DLNW03-000423-2024
Sh. OP Tanwar through Legal Heir Dhruv Tanwar
R/o 74/B-7, Sector 4
Rohini, Delhi-110085 ……….Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Spinny,
Having its corporate office at:
Value Drive Technologies Private Limited
8th Floor, Capital Business Park, Sector 48, Gurugram,
Haryana 122018
And registered office at:
Pureride Technologies Private Limited
B1/H3 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area Mathura Road,
Block-B Delhi South Delhi 110044
And Branch Office at:
Spinny Car Hub-NSP, PP Trade Center, 7th Floor, Netaji
Subhash Place, Netaji Subhash Complex-Pitampura,
Delhi-110034
…Defendant no.1
2. Red Kiwi Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at:
Spinny Car Hub, Universal Trade Towers, Sohna Road,
Sector 49, Gurugram
…Defendant no.2
3. Delhi Transport Department West District II,
Transport Department, DTC Depot, Raja Garden
…Defendant no.3
-- 1 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
2 of page no. 8
SUIT FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION & MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
Date of institution : 23.02.2024
Date of decision : 31.01.2026
Final Order : Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as per plaintiff are that
Mr. OP Tanwar was the owner of a vehicle bearing no.
DL4CAH7664 make Honda City, Engine No.
L15A70002288 (hereinafter referred as vehicle in
question). It is stated that the defendant no. 1 namely Spinny
is a platform that deals in selling and purchasing of used
cars, defendant no. 2 is a subsidiary company of defendant
no. 1 and defendant no. 3 is the Delhi Transport Department,
West District-II. It is stated that Mr. OP Tanwar desired to
sell the said vehicle, hence, he contacted defendant no.1 in
September 2021 and after various negotiations the valuation
of sale amount was decided and the transaction was
completed at the house of Mr. OP Tanwar at Rohini, Delhi.
It is stated that the defendant no.1 had promised that it shall
get the ownership of the vehicle transferred within three
months from the date of transaction, however, they failed to
-- 2 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
3 of page no. 8
do so. It is further stated that in February 2022, Mr. Op
Tanwar got to know that the said vehicle had been already
sold by the defendant no.1 to a 3rd party for which NOC had
been issued for RTO Bhatinda, Punjab. Agitated with this,
Mr. Op Tanwar contacted the defendant no.1 who apprised
that the said vehicle was sold to a dealer through auction,
however on repeated request of Mr. OP Tanwar, the
ownership was not changed and details of subsequent buyer
were not provided. It is further stated that Mr. Op Tanwar
expired on 17.08.2022, hence, the present suit has been filed
by his son namely Mr. Dhruv Tanwar seeking directions to
the defendant to transfer the ownership of the vehicle in the
name of the defendant or the end buyer. Further it is also
sought that the registration of the vehicle be cancelled as its
fitness had expired and also the plaintiff has sought Rs.
1,40,000/- as damages.
2. Notice of the suit was issued to the defendant on 26.02.2024
whereby all the defendants entered appearance and
expressed their willingness to settle the matter as mentioned
in the order dated 04.06.2024, however, no settlement could
be arrived. Further no WS was filed on behalf of the
defendant hence, the defendant was struck of vide order
dated 19.11.2024 and defendant no. 3 was proceeded ex-
parte vide order dated 24.02.2025.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PARTIES AND DOCUMENTS
RELIED UPON BY THEM:
3. To discharge his onus, the plaintiff examined
Thereafter, PW-1 Mr. Dhruv Tanwar, LR of Mr. OP
-- 3 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
4 of page no. 8
Tanwar was examined whereby in his evidence by
way of affidavit, he reiterated his version as
mentioned in the plaint and he relied upon following
documents: -
Mark PW 1/1- Photocopy of registration Certificate ID
card of plaintiff.
Mark PW1/2- Copy of Bank statement chain of title
documents.
Ex. PW1/3- Copy of acknowledgement of sale and
delivery of vehicle.
Ex. PW1/4 Copy of NOC
Ex. PW1/5 Copy of email
Ex. PW1/6- Certificate under 65 B of IEA.
4. PW1 was cross examined by the counsel for defendant no.
1&2 and during his cross examination he stated that he is
the LR of Mr. Op Tanwar and relied on the documents such
as Driving License, BAR Council of Delhi ID Card and the
Membership Card of DHCBA.
5. Thereafter PE was closed and no defence evidence was lead
hence matter was fixed for final arguments vide order of the
Ld. Predecessor dated 06.05.2025.
6. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has
discharged his burden of proof by placing on record the
relevant documents and the defendant had failed to get the
ownership of the said vehicle transferred even after repeated
requests of the plaintiff. Hence, it is prayed that the suit of
plaintiff be decreed.
-- 4 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
5 of page no. 8
7. Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 1&2 had argued that the
plaintiff had failed to prove that he is the LR of OP Tanwar,
hence his suit is not maintainable. It has also been argued
that the vehicle in question has been further sold and the
subsequent buyer has not been made a part, hence it is
prayed that the plaint is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
8. Before embarking to decide the present case, it would be
appropriate to reiterate the burden of proof required to be
discharged in civil proceedings. As laid down in Postgrad-
uate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal
Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330, the burden which ought to be
discharged in civil proceedings is not as strict as in criminal
cases and in order for any party to succeed, he/it is required
to prove his/its case on the preponderance of probabilities.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid pronouncement is
hereby produced here for the sake of brevity:
“It has been held that there is a marked
difference as to the effect of evidence,
namely, the proof, in civil and criminal
proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere
preponderance of probability is suffi-
cient, and the defendant is not necessar-
ily entitled to the benefit of every rea-
sonable doubt; but in criminal proceed-
ings, the persuasion of guilt must amount
to such a moral certainty as convinces the
-- 5 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
6 of page no. 8
mind of the court, as a reasonable man,
beyond all reasonable doubt.”
9. Further, Section 101 of the Evidence Act, 1872 defines "
burden of proof" and laid down that the burden of proving a
fact always lying upon the person who asserts the facts.
Until such burden is discharged, the other party is not re-
quired to be called upon to prove his case. The court has to
examine as to whether the person upon whom the burden
lies has been able to discharge his burden. Until he arrives
at such conclusion, he cannot proceed on the basis of
weakness of other party. In view of Section 103 of Evidence
Act, the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that
person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence,
unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact
shall lies upon any particular person. Further, Section 58 of
the Indian Evidence Act contains that no fact needs to be
proved in any proceedings which parties thereto or their
agents agree to admit at the herein, or which, before the
hearing, they agree to admit by any writing under their
hands or which by any rule of pleadings enforce at the time
they are deemed to have admitted by their pleadings.
10.In the present suit, the plaintiff has produced documents
such as Agreement to sell which mentions that the vehicle
in question was delivered on 13.09.2021 by the father of the
plaintiff to defendant no.1 for a sum of Rs. 1,37,000/-. The
said delivery has been handed over to the defendant at Sec-
tor 4 Rohini, i.e., within jurisdiction of this Court. Also, the
-- 6 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
7 of page no. 8
plaintiff has shown the Bank statement of Mr. O.P. Tanwar
to show that the said amount was received whereby con-
firming the sale of the said vehicle. Moreover, no objection
has been taken by the defendant to the said sale inferring
that it has not been denied by the defendant that the vehicle
was sold by the father of the plaintiff to Spinny.
11.Further the plaintiff has placed on record NOC of the
transport department to show that the said vehicle was fur-
ther transferred by the defendant to RTO Bhatinda, Punjab
after which the plaintiff has continuously exchanged emails
with the defendant seeking transfer of ownership of the said
vehicle as visible from Ex. PW1/5.
12.All these documents are sufficient to show that the vehicle
in question was sold by Mr. OP Tanwar to Spinny on
13.09.2021 and thereafter it was further sold by Spinny to
someone else without getting the ownership transferred.
The plaintiff apprehends that liability of plaintiff will be
fixed for any act by the use of said vehicle as the ownership
has still not been transferred.
13.In view of this Court, the apprehension of plaintiff is well
founded as the registered owner holds responsibility to-
wards the act done by using a vehicle. No defence has been
taken by the defendant in his arguments except for stating
that the vehicle has been sold to some third person and now
the defendant is not in a position to transfer the ownership.
14.The defendant, very conveniently has denied its responsi-
bility forgetting that the agreement was done by father of
the plaintiff with the defendant and delivery was also
-- 7 of 8 --
CS No. 290/24
OP Tanwar V. Spinny and Ors.
8 of page no. 8
handed over to them. Also, it is the defendant who has fur-
ther transferred the vehicle which might have been trans-
ferred even further and the plaintiff cannot be made to suf-
fer additional hardship by asking him to track down the
subsequent buyers.
15.Hence the suit of the plaintiff is decreed.
Relief
16. The defendant no.1 and 2 are directed to take steps for
transfer of ownership of the vehicle in its name or in the
name of the subsequent buyer, whatever the situation is,
within one month, and the plaintiff is directed to cooperate
with the defendant for the above-said purpose if need be.
17. Keeping in vie the facts and circumstances of this case, the
defendant no.1 and 2 are liable, jointly and severely, to pay
a Cost of Rs. 50,000/- to the plaintiff.
18.In view of the discussion made above, it is clarified that the
plaintiff shall not have liability for the acts done by use of
Vehicle in question after 13.09.2021.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Announced in the open Court today.
(Vaibhav Kumar)
Civil Judge-N/W District
Rohini Courts/31.01.2026
This Judgment contains 08 pages and each page has been signed
by me
-- 8 of 8 --