Garg Enterprises vs Amar Singh

THE complaint filed by Amar Singh was dismissed by the District Forum, Mansa on September 17,1997 but without any costs. THE opposite party-Garg Enterprises is in appeal claiming costs of litigation and compensation on the basis of finding recorded by the District Forum that the complainant had concealed material facts in the complaint and had wrongly approached the District Forum for refund of the amount paid for purchase of tractor and that he was not a consumer. He could approach the Civil Court.

ONLY brief facts are being noticed as the findings recorded by the District Forum are to be accepted, since Amar Singh complainant has not filed any appeal challenging the same. On deposit of Rs. 15,000/- Amar Singh wanted to purchase a tractor from the opposite party-Garg Enterprises. According to him the tractor was not supplied and he had to approach the District Forum. The stand taken up by the opposite party was that the tractor was supplied and was taken back after two months as the complainant did not repay the instalments. Whatever amount was due was got adjusted in his account with the bank. He wanted to play a fraud on the bank by obtaining loan without pledging the property. The contention of Counsel for the opposite party-appellant that compensation should be awarded to them cannot be accepted as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act do not contemplate grant of compensation to the opposite party in any situation. If he had any grouse he should have approached the Civil Court. It cannot be said that the opposite party had hired the services of the complainant in the matter of sale of tractor.

As far as the costs are concerned, in the case of forged and frivolous complaint being filed by the complainant costs should have been awarded. We have gone through the complaint and find no mention therein about delivery of the tractor and availing of two free services and thereafter return of the tractor to the opposite party. Such stand was specifically taken up by the opposite party in the written statement and the evidence produced. When the complainant concealed material facts from the District Forum, he did not deserve any sympathy. This appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The complainant would pay costs of litigations to the opposite party-the appellant, which are assessed at Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed. ______________