Jasbir Singh vs Inder Tractors

MR. Justice Ashok Bhan, President-Petitioner, who was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (hereinafter referred to as ''the District Forum'' for short), has filed the present Revision Petition against the Order dated 28.12.2005 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'' for short) wherein and whereunder the State Commission thereby allowing the Appeal, set aside the Order of the District Forum and dismissed the Complaint.

SHORTLY stated, the facts leading to the filing of the case are:

IT was stated in the Complaint that being attracted by the advertisement in public by the respondents to the effect that on purchase of a new Eicher Tractor, they will give a Bullet Motor Cycle to the customer, petitioner/complainant approached OP No. 1 and paid Rs. 4,35,000 through bank draft and cash on 27/28.2.2004 for the purchase of tractor under the said scheme. That the said scheme was in force upto 31.3.2004. That by playing fraud, the opposite parties intentionally and willfully delivered the old tractor in place of new tractor. That on approaching the opposite parties, OP No. 2 told the petitioner that new tractor was not available with them and they will deliver him the new tractor after some time on receiving the same. That the opposite parties did not deliver new Bullet Motor Cycle as per the Scheme and have illegally taken Rs. 20,000 from the petitioner on account of miscellaneous expenses. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, petitioner filed the Complaint before the District Forum seeking direction for the opposite parties to deliver new Bullet Motor Cycle to him as per the Scheme and further to pay insurance cost of Rs. 6,519 which was paid by the petitioner and to pay Rs. 2,00,000 along with interest @ 18% p.a. as damages/loss besides costs of litigation.

ON being served, OP No. l filed its Written Statement stating that it received a sum of Rs. 4,15,000 only and not Rs. 4,35,000, as alleged in the Complaint, for the tractor purchased by the petitioner. That the scheme was introduced for a period of 1 month, i.e., from 1.3.2004 to 31.3.2004. That the petitioner was not covered under the said scheme as he had purchased the tractor on 26.2.2004, i.e., much before the scheme. That the respondents had supplied a brand new tractor to the petitioner vide Invoice No. 230 dated 26.2.2004. That as there was complaint in the tractor, the tractor was changed and a new tractor was supplied vide Invoice No. 234 dated 31.3.2004. The supply of old tractor, receipt of notice and receipt of Rs. 20,000 from the complainant was denied. OP No. 2, in its Written Statement, stated that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 2 and, the controversy, if any, was between the petitioner and OP No. 1. The scheme of giving of new Bullet Motor Cycle was also denied.

DISTRICT Forum, after taking into consideration, the pleadings as well as the evidence led by the parties, allowed the Complaint against OP No. l with a direction to deliver a new Bullet 350 Motor Cycle as per the scheme floated in the pamphlet to the complainant. Rs. 2,500 were awarded as costs. District Forum dismissed the complaint against OP No. 2.

BEING aggrieved by the Order passed by the District Forum, OP No. 1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal, set aside the Order of District Forum and dismissed the Complaint. It was held that the petitioner/complainant has failed to produce any document on record to show that in fact Rs. 4,35,000 was paid to the opposite parties or that there was any agreement to make payment of Rs. 4,35,000 or there was any assurance to deliver Bullet Motor Cycle along with the tractor. That it is an admitted case of the petitioner that the tractor was purchased on 26.2.2004 which was defective and the tractor was delivered on 31.3.2004 was the replacement of the earlier tractor. That as per OP No. 1, the scheme for delivering of Bullet Motor Cycle was applicable from 1.3.2004 to 31.3.2004 and, thus, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of the scheme for the tractor purchased on 26.2.2004.

AGGRIEVED by the Order passed by the State Commission, petitioner has filed this Revision Petition.

IN spite of Notice, none appeared for the respondents. Ordered to be proceeded ex parte. Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length.

ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner had purchased the tractor on 26.2.2004 and the scheme was operative w.e.f. 1.3.2004 to 31.3.2004. As the tractor had been purchased by the petitioner prior to the introduction of the scheme, the petitioner was not covered under the said scheme. Petitioner has not placed either the advertisement or the pamphlet or the scheme which has been floated by the respondents. The State Commission has rightly reversed the Order of the District Forum by holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the Bullet Motor Cycle as he was not covered under the scheme at the time of purchase of the tractor. For the reasons stated above, we find no infirmity in the Order passed by the State Commission. Dismissed. No costs. R.P. dismissed.