Raghavendra Automobiles vs K.M. Bakkesh

THERE is a delay of 28 days in filing this revision petition. It is submitted by the petitioner in the application for condonation of delay that the delay is neither intentional nor deliberate but owing to circumstances beyond the control of the petitioner. The circumstances given in the application are not convincing at all and hence this revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on merits also.

PETITIONER herein was the OP before the District Forum and the respondent was the complainant. Briefly stated, the complainant purchased Swaraj 735 FE Tractor from the petitioner on 30.7.2007 for a consideration of Rs.4,10,445/- but the OP issued bill only for Rs.3,96,459/- thereby collected an excess amount of Rs.13,986/-. It is the case of the complainant that because of this discrepancy in the bill, he could not get the benefit of subsidy from the Government even though he was entitled for it. Having failed to get the response to his legal notice, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum in respect of deficiency on the part of OP including unfair trade practice. 2. On being noticed, OP resisted the complaint denying all the allegations and submitted that the bill in question was issued at the insistence of the complainant and at no point of time did he collect excess amount over the cost of the said tractor. It was further submitted that the discrepancy in the bill is not the criteria for the complainant in not receiving the subsidy from the Government. On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced by the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 17.11.2009. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP challenged the same before the State Commission in appeal on the ground that the District Forum did not appreciate both the oral and documentary evidence while unsuiting the defence of the OP. It was also submitted by the OP that the District Forum committed an error in delivering the uncorroborated sworn testimony of the complainant and hence the conclusion arrived at the inferences drawn by the District Forum are erroneous, unjust and improper. After hearing the parties and going through the pleadings, the State Commission while confirming the order of the District Forum, held the OP guilty of unfair trade practice. The appeal of the OP was, therefore, dismissed by the State Commission. This revision petition has now been filed by the OP/petitioner challenging the said order of the State Commission.

The State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has recorded the following reasons in support of its finding:- ?8. At the outset, it is not in dispute that this complainant purchased Tractor on 30.7.2007 from OP for consideration of Rs.4,10,445/-. But OP has issued credit bill for Rs.3,96,459/-. So on the face of it there appears to be unfair trade practice. It is contended by the OP that at the request of the complainant they have issued credit bill for a lesser amount so that he can get benefit of subsidy from the Government. For this defence basically there is no proof. Though OP has contended that if the cost of the said Tractor was more than Rs.4,00,000/- complainant was not entitled for the subsidy. For this contention also, no documents are produced. Under the circumstances, the bare and vague defence set out by the OP in a cases like nature rather alone cannot be believed. 9. The say of the complainant which finds corroboration with contents of the undisputed appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is the quality. As per the rate contract with the Department of Agriculture, dealers were expected to sell the Tractor for Rs.3,96,459/-. When that is so, why OP collected Rs.4,10,445/- from the complainant is not known. If the price of the Tractor was Rs.4,10,445/- there was no reasons for OP to issue credit bill for a lesser amount. Particularly when there was no condition regarding price of the Tractor to claim subsidy. 10. The DF has thoroughly examined each and every aspect of the matter and appreciated both oral and documentary evidence. A threadbare discussion is made and rightly come to the just conclusion that there is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. On the other hand, the appellant has failed to show before this Commission that the said order is erroneous, unjust and improper or that it suffers from legal infirmity, unsustainable in law much less if suffers from any error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. Appeal appears to be devoid of merit.?

We agree with the view taken by the fora below. Except reiterating the submissions already considered by the fora below, there is no other material produced by learned counsel before us in support of the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, perusal of the orders of the District Forum and the State Commission show that both the fora below have passed well-reasoned orders while returning their concurrent finding unsuiting the claim of the petitioner. We do not find any irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in these orders. The revision petition, therefore, is dismissed in limine.