GEMCRAFT ENGINEERING COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. vs K.K. SATYANARAYANA

THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 26th April, 1997 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No. 134 of 1995. The facts giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised as under :

THE petitioner, in this revision petition, represented to the complainant that he was selling TAFE tractor, trailers and other accessories. On the representation of the petitioner, the complainant purchased a tractor, trailer and front bumper. THE complainant found that the trailer was not manufactured by the respondent No. 2, TAFE, but it was locally made by a sister concern of the petitioner. He filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking direction to the petitioner to take back the trailer supplied to the complainant and also refund the price of the trailer and front bumper. THE claim was resisted by the petitioner before the District Forum. THE District Forum after appraisal of the material placed on record, returned the finding that the petitioner supplied a sub-standard non-TAFE trailer to the complainant though the complainant paid the amount in respect of TAFE trailer. THE District Forum directed the petitioner to take back the trailer and deliver a standard trailer of TAFE Co. or refund the amount of Rs. 51,538.36 with interest at the rate of 15% p.m. from 28th March, 1992 till payment. THE petitioner was further directed to refund Rs. 10,699.75 being the price of the tiller and front bumper with interest. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, Karnataka. The State Commission, after taking into consideration the relevant contentions of the parties and perusing the order of the District Forum and the material on record, affirmed the order of the District Forum. It was observed by the State Commission that the complainant wanted a trailer manufactured by TAFE and the petitioner who was the dealer of the TAFE had agreed to supply the trailer manufactured by the TAFE and that he had not delivered the trailer manufactured by the TAFE.

Being not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed this revision petition. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It was urged on behalf of the petitioner that both the FORA below went wrong in holding that the Petitioner laid not supplied the trailer of TAFE.

WE have perused the record. In our view the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of merit. Both the FORA below have examined this point. They found that the trailer supplied by the petitioner was not of TAFE make. This is a question of fact concluded by both the FORA below. The finding is based on the appraisal of the material placed on record. WE find no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission. The revision petition is dismissed. However, since there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 1, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petition dismissed.