Rajesh Kumar Pandey vs District Consumer Forum

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 12.10.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Kanpur Dehat in Complaint Case No. 17/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant purchased tractor from opposite party No. 1, Rajesh Kumar Pandey and paid Rs. 25,000/-. Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey advised the complainant to take loan for the tractor from the bank. THE tractor did not work satisfactory, hence the complainant requested the opposite party No. 1 to take back the tractor. THE tractor was taken back by the opposite party No. 1 and a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was given to the complainant. When the cheque was presented for encashment before the bank, it could not to encashed as its payment was stopped by the opposite party No. 1 on 17.7.1992. Notices were sent to the opposite party who came and applied for time to file the written statement but no written statement was filed, hence the complaint was decided ex parte.

The complainant had filed evidence in support of its contention before the learned District Forum, who after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and decreed the claim for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.

AGGRIEVED against this order the appellant has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum. We have perused the file and heard the learned Counsels for the parties.

A perusal of the file will go to show that on 14.9.1992 the appellant had taken time for filing of written statement. He was granted time upto 25.9.1992 for doing the same. 28.9.1992 was fixed for evidence of the parties but even on that date no written statement was filed by Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey. He was also not present before the District Forum on that date, hence on that date an ex parte order was passed. Thereafter 30.9.1992 was fixed for ex parte hearing. Even on that date Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey was not present. An application for setting aside the ex parte judgment was moved by the appellant before the District Forum which was dismissed on 6.2.1993 as there was no sufficient cause for absence of Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Rajesh Kumar had no information of the date fixed. This argument cannot be accepted. The District Forum has given time to the appellant to file the written statement. It was the duty of the appellant to have filed the written statement on the date fixed and if for some reason the written statement could not be filed, he should have approached the District Forum for further time to file the written statement. Instead of appearing before the learned District Forum the appellant remained absent and in the meantime ex parte order was passed against the appellant. The appellant was given opportunity to appear and put up his case before the learned District Forum. This opportunity was not availed by the appellant. Now he cannot be heard to say that no opportunity was given to him. As the appellant did not adduce any evidence before the learned District Forum, therefore, the learned District Forum had no other option open but to decree the claim of the complainant on the basis of evidence which was filed by him.

A perusal of the judgment and order will clearly go to show that the appellant has given a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant which was not encashed as the appellant had stopped its payment on 17.7.1992. There is no rebuttal of this fact. Thus, the complainant had proved his case before the learned District Forum and the learned District Forum was perfectly justified in coming to this conclusion. There is no force in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- as cost to the complainant. Let compliance of this order be made within a period of two months from the date of this order. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Appeal dismissed.