YAQOOB ALI KHAN vs SINGH AUTO SERVICES TRACTOR COMPANY

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner after taking loan from the second respondent, Bank of Baroda, purchased a tractor from the first respondent, Singh Auto Services Tractor Co. The case of the petitioner is that he was never issued any receipt at the time of the purchase of the tractor and he alleges collusion between the first and second respondent and His case is that second respondent while paying -to the first respondent the amount of loan should have ensured that the sell receipt is given to him. It appears that subsequently since the petitioner was not paying the instalments, the Bank who was paid only one instalment approached the revenue authorities to recover the loan as arrears of loan revenue under Section 11 (a) of U.P. Agricultural Credit Act, 1973. The tractor was seized, auctioned for Rs. 86,600. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the District Forum. It is not disputed that the complainant filed first complaint before the District Forum on 9.2I200lTmaking the first and second respondent as the opposite parties. Without waiting for the outcome of this complaint, another complaint was filed on 19.5.2001 varying the allegations against the Bank. The first complaint was dismissed on 11.7.2001 as withdrawn As per law, the complainant could not have filed two complaints before the Consumer Forum for same cause of action without revealing the facts before the District Forum. Be that as it may, based on the complaint filed by the petitioner on 19.5.2001, the District Forum after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the first respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 14,476 being excess price charged by the respondent/opposite party and also pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 for mental pain and agony along with cost of Rs. 1,000. Aggrieved/dissatisfied with this order, both the parties filed two separate appeals before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties allowed the appeal filed by the first respondent, Singh Auto Services Tractor Co. and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant. It is in these circumstances that this revision petition has been filed before us.

WE heard the petitioner in person and also learned Counsel for the respondents, basic facts are not disputed that obtaining loan from the second respondent, Bank of Baroda, which was released in favour of the first respondent, Singh Auto Service Tractor Co. It is also not in dispute that receipt of the tractor having been sold to the petitioner by the 1st respondent is on

RECORD . When the petitioner was unable to pay the stipulated instalment except for the first instalment paid on~31.12.1991 and not paying another instalment thereafter the issue was reported by the second respondent before Tehsildar, Kichchha District, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttaranchal. In exercise of powers in Act (supra), the fourth respondent seized the tractor on 3.2.2001, which* was ''auctioned on 23.3.2001 and proceeds were released in favour of the second respondent. The State Commission in its comprehensive and detailed order dealt with each of the plea/allegation raised by the petitioner /complainant in its complaint. There is no disputing the fact that once the petitioner has not payed the instalments to the Bank under the law, the Bank had the powers to seize the vehicle and auction it and this was precisely what was clone in this case. In its complaint, the first allegation is that no receipt was given by the first respondent, we are in full agreement with the finding returned by the State Commission that if the receipt was not given either he should not have taken the delivery of the tractor or he should not have paid his share of the purchase price or for that matter the bank draft prepared by the Bank in favour of the first respondent. But on record we see the receipt '' dated 17.1.1998 issued by the second respondent to the petitioner (at page 91 of the paper book, which is filed by the petitioner/complainant), whether sale letter was not issued is not clear, receipt was issued and that should be enough to get the registration of the tractor. Several issues in the complaint relate to the authority of the revenue hierarchy to issue recovery certificate, seizing the vehicle, auctioning it, etc. have been raised which, in our view, cannot be dealt in by the Consumer Forums. Certain Technical pleas have also been taken with regard to attachment, seizure and auction, which Consumer Forums cannot go into. It is important to observe that the complainant also filed a writ petition before the Uttaranchal High Court about the loan taken from the second respondent. In that writ also he states that the documents of ownership were never delivered by the Bank but the tractor remained in his possession and made a plea that he is unable to deposit the entire amount in one instalment. Accepting the plea of the petitioner, the Hon''ble High Court passed the order directing him to pay the amount in instalment no other relief was given. As could l Be evident that he does not appear to come before the District Forum with clean hands, requisite relief given by the Hon''ble High Court and which has attained finality and it is not possible, as rightly held by the State Commission, that the Consumer Forums cannot go into the orders passed by the Hon''ble High Court, especially in writ petitions. It is also relevant to mention that the petitioner also took up the matter in revision petition before the Commissioner, Nainital Revenue Division, which was also dismissed.

NO legal infirmity or lack of exercise of jurisdiction has been shown to us in the order passed by the State Commission, calling for our interference on the detailed order passed by the State Commission which, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, allowed him to seek relief either by filing a suit or certain remedy or authority of competent jurisdiction.

IN view of above, we see no merit in the revision petition filed before us, which is dismissed. The petitioner, as ordered by the State Commission, shall be free to seek remedy before any Civil Court of law except the Consumer Forums. For sequel relief he shall be entitled to get a set-off the period spent before the Consumer Forums while calculating the period of limitation as per law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, II (1995) CPJ1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583. No orders as to costs.