Back
RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAIPUR
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President &
Mrs. Sushma Tanwar, Member
DAYANAND SINGH MODSARA—Appellant
versus
GANPAT RAM & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal No. 221 of 2000—Decided on 18.3.2002
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Poonia and Mr. Praveen Kateva, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Anil Chauhan, Advocate.
Headnote:
C.P. Act - Fraudulent Sale of Tractor - Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 - [Section 15, C.P. Act, 1986] - The court discussed the fraudulent sale of a tractor by the appellant to the complainants, involving misappropriation of funds and collusion with bank officials. The court highlighted the material contradictions in the versions presented by the appellant and the respondent Bank, and concluded that the appellant had played a fraud on the complainants and the Bank by using false and forged documents. The court dismissed the appeal and imposed compensatory costs on the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a dealer of tractors, fraudulently sold a tractor to the complainants, misappropriating funds and using false documents. The District Forum directed the appellant to deliver a tractor to the complainants or pay outstanding dues to the Bank, along with compensation and litigation costs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had played a fraud on the complainants and the Bank by using false and forged documents, and resisted a genuine claim of the complainants, compelling them to enter into litigation.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant, after receiving the full consideration of the goods from the complainants through the Bank, had delivered a tractor to them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the material contradictions in the versions presented by the appellant and the respondent Bank, and the use of false and forged documents by the appellant to deceive the complainants and the Bank.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and compensatory costs were imposed on the appellant. The court also forwarded a copy of the order to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies for necessary action against the erring and delinquent officials of the respondent Bank.
Mr. Justice M.A.A. Khan, President—This appeal under Section 15 of the C.P. Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’), by a supplier of goods against the order of District Forum, Jhunjhunu (Raj.) dated 6.1.1999 arises under the following circumstances.
2. Respondent-complainant Nos. 1 to 3, are members of Scheduled Caste carrying on the profession of agriculture in a village of Jhunjhunu district. With a view to purchase a tractor with the agricultural loan to be obtained by them from the Co-operative Land Development Bank at Jhunjhunu, O.P.-respondent Nos. 4 and 5, they contacted the appellant, who is a dealer of “Swaraj” Tractors and carried on his said business in the business name and style of M/s. Shekhawati Auto Tractors and Spare Parts at Jhunjhunu. The appellant quoted the price at Rs. 2,53,090/- of a Swaraj 735 F.E. Tractor and the complainant deposited the quotation on 20.11.1995 with O.P.-respondent Nos. 4 and 5. A loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- was sanctioned to them on 30.11.1995 and they were required to deposit their share of price of tractor and other expenses amounting to Rs. 61,655/- and also to secure the debt with the mortgage of their deed of their immovable property. The complainant executed the mortgage deed of their immovable property in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 on 6.12.1995 and also deposited a sum of Rs. 61,655/- with them on 11.12.1995. But despite their repeatedly visiting the offices of the Bank and the appellant for about two years the complainant got neither the delivery of any tractor nor any substantial information regarding the possibility of getting one. Finally they served a written notice upon respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and in reply to their notice the said respondents informed them vide letter dated 31.7.1997 that the Bank made a payment of Rs. 2,53,090/- to the appellant on 11.12.1995 towards purchase of 39 H.P. Swaraj Tractor by the complainants and that the appellant had informed the Bank authorities that a Swaraj Tractor had been delivered to the complainants on 13.12.1995 vide Bill No. 290 dated 13.12.1995. On making further enquiry into the matter the complainant came to know that the appellant had sold the tractor mentioned in the aforesaid bill, to S/Sri Rati Ram and Mohan Singh, Jats of village Ratipura. The complainant apprised the Bank authorities of such facts accordingly and thereupon an enquiry was initiated by the Bank against the appellant. On enquiry the Bank authorities, through preliminary report of the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies dated 21.2.1998, came to know that the appellant did not deliver any tractor to the complainants against the loan sanctioned to them and misappropriated the same.
3. In reply to the complaint filed against them, the appellant-O.P. No. 1 asserted that on receipt of the price of the tractor, as per quotation given by him, on 11.12.1995 from respondent Bank, he had delivered a Swaraj 735 F.E. Tractor with Chassis No. 95 K 3403845 and Engine No. 37.1301/95 H 3969 to the complainant on 12.12.1995 and obtained a receipt in respect thereto from them. Further, he delivered Bill No 289 dated 12.12.1995 and sale certificate on Form No. 21 along with Form No. 22 of Punjab Tractors Ltd. to the complainants. It was further stated that a registration certificate was also subsequently issued by the Registration Authorities in complainant’s favour and that in their affidavit dated 12.2.1998 they acknowledged the delivery of the tractor to them. The appellant explained that he had sold another tractor to S/shri Rati Ram and Mohan Singh vide Bill No. 290 having Chassis No. 39. 1301/95 N 6392. It was contended that the preliminary report of the Asstt. Registrar, Co-operative Societies was incorrect and not reliable.
4. The version given by respondent Bank (respondent No. 2 is the Branch and respondent No. 3 is the main Bank) is that they had made payment of Rs. 2,05,300/- to the appellant on 11.12.1995 relating to appellant’s Bill No. 290 dated 13.12.1995 vide Bank Draf
