CASE SUMMARY –xxxxx
- 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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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)
- Objective
Primary objective is to:
- recover the full amount paid (₹7,84,000), and
- take appropriate criminal action to create pressure for resolution.
- 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
- 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:
- Which route is more effective for early pressure and recovery in this fact situation;
- Whether submitting a fresh complaint at PS Palam is advisable or necessary at this