M/S. GAUTAM TRACTORS & AUTOMOBILES & ANR. vs ONKAR SINGH & ANR.

This Revision Petition, by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, namely, M/s Gautam Tractors & Automobiles and its Manager, Authorized Dealers in Mahindra Tractors, is directed against the order dated 31.12.20109, passed by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Shimla (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 72 of 2006. By the impugned order, while allowing the Appeal preferred by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation, awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala (for short "the District Forum"), vide its order dated 17.01.2006, in Consumer Case No. 437 of 2004, the State Commission has directed the Petitioners to pay to the Complainant a lump sum amount of Rs.97,500/- as compensation, on or before 28.02.2010, with a default stipulation that in the event of their failure to make payment of the said amount within the stipulated time, it shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaint, i.e. 23.11.2004, till the date of payment/deposit, whichever is earlier.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and carefully examined the findings in the impugned order regarding deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners, we are of the opinion that the Revision Petition is without any substance.

Admittedly, the finding of the District Forum that the Petitioners were deficient in service to the Complainant for not furnishing to him the requisite forms to facilitate registration of the tractor in question, was not questioned by them by preferring Appeal to the State Commission. Therefore, the question surviving for consideration is as to whether the basis adopted by the State Commission for enhancing the compensation is vitiated? In this behalf, for the sake of ready reference, the reasons, which seem to have weighed with the State Commission in awarding the afore-noted compensation, are extracted below:

"7. Now comes the question as to how to compensate the appellants. He had purchased the tractor as far back as on 5.7.2003, we are at the close of 2009. For more than 6 and a half year appellant could not get the tractor registered. Thus assessing the compensation on a conservative sum of Rs.15,000/- per annum and the appellants are held entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.97,500/. Though Mr. Chandel at this stage urged that his client is not liable even for the amount that has been ordered to be paid by the District Forum below to the appellants. Reason given by him is that all necessary documents required for getting the tractor in question registered were already delivered along with tractor when it was taken out of the showroom vide gate pass Annexure C-6, thus he prayed for dismissal of this appeal. This argument is being noted to be rejected for the simple reason that there is no evidence produced by the respondents to show the handing over of the necessary documents to the appellant. Annexure C-6 gate pass, only shows that the tractor was taken out of the showroom with accessories and nothing beyond it, because there is no mention of any documents in this document." (Emphasis supplied)

The main thrust of the argument of learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioners, is that immediately on receipt of the order passed by the District Forum, on 17.01.2006, vide letter dated 14.02.2006 the Petitioners had asked the Complainant to collect the requisite forms but he failed to turn up and, therefore, at least after the date of the order of the District Forum, delay in issue of forms could not be attributed to the Petitioners.

Controverting the submission, the Complainant, who is present in person, states that immediately on receipt of the said letter, he visited the office of the Petitioners for collecting the requisite documents but he was asked to bring an independent witness, known to the Petitioners, to witness the delivery of the said documents.

To say the least, the conduct of the Petitioners was absolutely unreasonable. We are unable to fathom any reason as to why the Complainant was asked to bring a witness, known to the Petitioners, when only two documents, which were of no use to anybody else and were required by the Complainant for the purpose of registration of the Tractor, sold by the Petitioners to him, were to be handed over to him. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found with the impugned order, warranting interference in our revisionary jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed accordingly.

At this stage, it is pointed out that a sum of Rs.35,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioners with the District Forum in terms of order dated 22.04.2010, passed by this Commission. If that be so, the said amount along with interest accrued, if any, shall be released to the Complainant on his moving appropriate application in this behalf. The balance amount due in terms of the impugned order shall be paid by the Petitioners to the Complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We, however, direct that if the entire amount due in terms of the impugned order is paid to the Complainant within the time granted by us, the interest as awarded by the State Commission on the entire amount of Rs.97,500/- shall not be payable.

The Revision Petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.