RAM KRISHNA BHARTI S/O SH.RAM NATH vs RAMAN DISTRIBUTOR PVT. THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.01.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in First Appeal No. 151/2009, "Raman Distributor Private Limited vs. Ram Krishna Bharti", vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 30.12.2008, passed by the District Forum Chandauli in consumer complaint No. 60/2005, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

The petitioner/complainant Ram Krishna Bharti filed consumer complaint No. 60/2005 before the District Forum, saying that he approached the opposite party/OP-1/respondent No. 1 Raman Distributor Private Limited through OP-2/respondent No. 2 Mahender Uppadhyay, who was acting as an agent for OP-1, about the purchase of a Classic Cruiser vehicle. The price of the said vehicle was stated as 4,25,000/- by the OP-2. The complainant paid a sum of 1 lakh in cash on 22.10.2004 to OP-1 and the balance money, i.e., 3,25,000/- was arranged as loan from the Kashi Grameen Bank. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that the OP-1 received money from the complainant for getting issued a permit for Maxi Cab from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Chandauli, but he did not get the said permit issued. It is also stated that the OP-1 delivered the vehicle on 17.02.2005, but in place of Classic Cruiser vehicle, the vehicle of another brand, i.e., Classic Toofan was given to him, whose price was less than the other model. The complainant also gave a sum of 23,000/- to OP-2 on 17.02.2005 for getting the vehicle registered with the RTO, Chandauli with Maxicab permit. The OP-1 handed over the permit for private vehicle issued on 1.04.2005 by the RTO, Bhadohi. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the value of Classic Cruiser vehicle was 4,25,000/- whereas that for Classic Toofan vehicle was 3,39,800/-. In this way, an excess amount of 85,200/- had been charged by the OPs. Through the consumer complaint, the complainant demanded a sum of 3,35,200/- as total compensation as per the following details:-

(i) 85,200/- as difference in cost between the two models of the vehicle;

(ii) 50,000/- as expenses incurred for private registration;

(iii) 1 lakh as compensation for mental agony etc.;

(iv) 1 lakh as loss of income till the conversion of the vehicle to Maxi Cab.

The District Forum vide their order dated 30.12.2008, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of 3,32,232/- alongwith interest @13% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint. The amount allowed by the District Forum included an excess amount of 85,200/- charged by the OPs from the complainant as differential cost of two models and also a sum of 57,032/- towards expenses in getting the vehicle challaned by the RTO on 3 occasions due to not getting the vehicle registered with Taxi permit. The District Forum also allowed a sum of 80,000/- for loss of income to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP-1 dealer challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which has been decided vide impugned order dated 31.12.2008. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum, saying that the complainant was entitled for receiving the remaining amount of 19,417/- as differential cost of the vehicle, 10,000/- as litigation expenses and 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony. The District Forum ordered that a sum of 49,417/- should be paid to the complainant alongwith interest @9% p.a. with effect from 25.01.2005. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

During arguments, it was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the vehicle, in question, had been sold in the year 2015, but the petitioner was liable to be compensated for the loss suffered by him due to the action of the OPs. The OPs should have got the vehicle registered as a commercial vehicle and not as private vehicle. Moreover, they had provided a different model of the vehicle to the complainant than that promised.

The learned counsel for the respondent stated that they had already complied with the order of the State Commission and paid the necessary amount to the petitioner. The learned counsel further argued that since the vehicle had been sold, the petitioner no longer remained a consumer.

We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

A material document for consideration in the matter is the affidavit filed by the OP-2/respondent No. 2, Mahender Uppadhyay before the District Forum, in which he stated that he was the agent of the OP-1 Raman Distributors and he had briefed the complainant at the time of purchase about both the Classic Cruiser and Classic Toofan vehicles. The OP-2 stated that the complainant had agreed to purchase Classic Toofan vehicle and hence, the OP-1 brought the said vehicle from Madhya Pradesh and handed over to him on 17.02.2005. The OP-2 further stated that the values of the Classic Cruiser and the Classic Toofan vehicle were the same at 4,25,000/-. However, when the complainant demanded the quotation of the vehicle from OP-1, the value of the Classic Toofan vehicle had been quoted as 3,39,800/- as per the requirements of the complainant and then, the complainant himself had got the registration done. The OP-2 has also stated in his affidavit that the complainant had made cash payment of 1 lakh to the OP-1 dealer and the Kashi Grameen Bank had made payment of 3,75,000/- to the said dealer OP-1. However, a sum of 50,000/- was returned to the Kashi Grameen Bank, Ali Nagar on 25.01.2005 by way of pay order No. 46672. Further, a sum of 15,783/- was returned to the said Bank vide pay order No. 008 dated 17.02.2005, meaning thereby that a total sum of 65,783/- had been returned to the Bank and thus, the OP-1 had received a net sum of 4,09,217/- towards the cost of the Classic Toofan vehicle.

A perusal of the impugned order recorded by the State Commission reveals that they have made their conclusion on the presumption that a sum of 4,25,000/- was received by the OP-1 and not 4,75,000/-. The State Commission observed that since the OP-1 had received a sum of 4,25,000/- against the quotation given for 3,39,800/-, they were required to pay the difference of 4,25,000 - 3,39,800/- = 85,200/- to the complainant or the Bank. Since the OP-1 had already returned the sum of 65,783/-, the remaining amount of 85,200 - 65,783 = 19,417/- was required to be refunded by the OP-1. This contention of the State Commission is erroneous, considering the fact that as stated the by OP-2, the OP-1 had received net amount of 4,09,217/- from the complainant/Bank, after returning the said amount of 65,783/- to the Bank. In this way, the OP-1 is required to return a sum of 4,09,217 - 3,39,800 =69,417/- to the complainant and not 19,417/-. In nutshell, it is stated that since the Bank advanced a sum of 3,75,000/- to the OP-1 and not 3,25,000/- as stated in the affidavit of the OP-2, the OP-1 is required to refund an additional sum of 50,000/- to the complainant, meaning thereby that instead of 19,417/-, the OP-1 should be asked to return a sum of 69,417/-. Resultantly, the amount allowed by the State Commission stands revised from 49,417/- to 99,417/-. The impugned order is, therefore, required to be modified accordingly.

The next point for consideration in the matter is that according to the complainant, his vehicle was impounded by the transport authorities three times, as it was being plied without proper permit. The complainant has tried to put the blame on the OP-1 for not obtaining the permit for him. This contention of the complainant is wholly unjustified, because it was the primary responsibility of the complainant to make an application for the said permit and get the same from the concerned authorities. In any case, the complainant should have refrained from plying the vehicle, till the requisite permit had been obtained from the statutory authorities. Further, it was the primary duty of the complainant to make an application for the registration of the vehicle and get the same done. Even if he had paid money to the OPs for getting the registration done and for obtaining the permit, the complainant is guilty for running the vehicle without the permit or the registration. It is evident, therefore, that the complainant does not deserve to be compensated for the allegations against the dealer for not getting the permit etc.

From the foregoing discussion, it is held that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of 99,417/- from the OP-1 alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. with effect from 25.01.2005. The impugned order passed by the State Commission stands modified accordingly. It is further ordered that the said payment shall be made within a period of six weeks from the date of this order by the OP-1 to the petitioner/complainant. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.