RAVINDER KUMAR CHOUDHARY vs MITHILANCHAL VAHAN TRACTOR PVT LTD

-THIS revision petition arises out of order dated 10. 3. 2008 in First Appeal No. 590 of 2006 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna which had allowed the appeal filed by Mr. Naveen Jaiswal, Proprietor, M/s. Mithilanchal Vahan Tractor Pvt. Ltd. , Madhubani (hereinafter referred to as dealer ). Earlier the District Forum, Madhubani vide its order dated 26. 6. 2006 had partly allowed the complaint.

THE case of the complainant is that he is a Secretary of a group run in the name of Adarsh Sowem Sahayata Samooh, Marar which obtained loan from Allahabad Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank) and purchased a tractor, trailer and cultivator from the opposite party - dealer by paying a sum of Rs. 2,86,503 through the Bank. Despite several requests the dealer never issued the sale letter. Accordingly, a lawyer''s notice was issued on 25. 9. 2003 followed by a written complaint. The District Forum after hearing the parties directed the dealer to issue a sale letter in the name of the complainant and also to pay Rs. 25,000 along with 12% interest p. a. for economic loss suffered by the complainant as the vehicle was not registered and could not run on the road. The dealer was also further directed to pay Rs. 5,000 to the complainant for his mental harassment along with Rs. 1,000 as cost. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the dealer filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission after hearing the parties and analysing the records produced before it came to the conclusion that the dealer has received a sum of Rs. 2,47,503 from the Bank towards the price of tractor, cultivator, hood and hitch. Along with the aforesaid bill the dealer has also filed delivery receipt dated 4. 10. 2001 issued by the Bank to the dealer. The State Commission also noted the customer''s delivery receipt dated 4. 10. 2001 which showed that the members of the Group had received tractor, cultivator, hood and hitch from the dealer. Further, the records produced show that delivery order dated 5. 10. 2001 issued by the Bank indicates that a sum of Rs. 39,000 was paid by the Bank to M/s. Sudhir Engineering Works for the trailer. The complainant had not made M/s. Sudhir Engineering Works as a party of the complaint. Hence, the claim of the complainant that the dealer had sold the trailer to the complainant is falsified.

The members of the group had also issued a certificate dated 4. 10. 2001 mentioning therein that they received tractor, trailer, hood and hitch as well as the sale letter in respect thereof and they were fully satisfied with the quality of the aforesaid articles. Therefore, the complainant was not justified in stating that sale letter was not issued in respect of tractor, trailer, hood and hitch. The State Commission has also observed that though the tractor, trailer, hood and hitch were purchased on 4. 10. 2001, the complaint was filed only on 6. 10. 2003 and it is difficult to believe why the complainant waited for so long, particularly if the tractor and trailer were not registered for want of sale letter. Accordingly, the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner at length. He has reiterated the points, which were raised by the Advocate for the complainants before the lower Fora. No record has been produced before us to show that the dealer has sold the trailer along with the tractor and other accessories. Secondly, we are not convinced by the argument that the complainant waited for more than 1 years for want of sale letter and did not put the tractor, trailer and its accessories to use. The State Commission had also directed the dealer to issue a duplicate sale leter if the complainant approaches him for the same. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Revision Petition dismissed.