Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
Jayashree Automobiles —Petitioner
versus
Dharmadas Pandey —Respondent
Revision Petition No.4009 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 20/08/2014 in Appeal No.852/2014 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 10.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Soumya Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Return of vehicle directed since allegedly a second hand vehicle sold to the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 58]—Motor vehicle—Purchase—Refund of money—Complainant purchased a truck from petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 8,66,044/-—Vehicle delivered to complainant—Refund of amount sought by alleging that a second hand vehicle had been sold to him—District Forum directed the complainant to return the truck to the petitioner and also directed to petitioner to refund the entire amount which it had received from the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a.—Appeal against dismissed by State Commission and revision against also dismissed by national commission—Subsequently application for recall of order of District Forum, filed but the same was dismissed—Appeal against also dismissed by State Commission—Hence this revision petition—Having produced the vehicle before District Forum, the complainant had discharged the obligation placed upon him by District Forum—Complainant could not be expected to maintain the vehicle in the same condition in which it was sold—Therefore, further directed that the vehicle shall be again brought by complainant before the District Forum on a date to be fixed by District Forum for such purpose—Truck will be brought in its existing condition and will be offered to petitioner which will accept the possession of truck in its condition existing at that time—Petitioner if again declines to receive the vehicle there will be no further obligation on the complainant to produce the vehicle—Complainant also directed to handover to petitioner all such documents are in his possession at the time the vehicle is brought to District Forum in terms of this order—Petitioner if accepts the vehicle alongwith documents brought by the complainant, it shall be open to him to avail such remedy, if any, as may be open to him in law against the complainant for not keeping the documents up-to-date. (Paras 10 and 11)
Result: Petition disposed of.
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—The complainant purchased a truck from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.8,66,044/-. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 04.02.2008. Alleging that a second hand vehicle had been sold to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking refund of the amount which he had paid to the petitioner.
2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds but was allowed by the District Forum which directed the complainant to return the truck to the petitioner. The District Forum also directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount which it had received from the complainant alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum.
3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner approached this Commission by way of a Revision Petition. The Revision Petition was also dismissed by this Commission vide its detailed order dated 07.05.2010.
4. The truck in question was brought by the complainant to the District Forum but the petitioner declined to take possession of the vehicle claiming that the documents which the complainant had brought alongwith the truck were expired documents.
5. In execution proceedings filed by the complainant, an application was filed by the petitioner on 06.03.2014 seeking recall of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 whereby the Consumer Complaint was allowed. It was inter-alia stated in the application that though the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission had been accepted by the complainant, the possession of the vehicle could not be taken by the petitioner the same not being in a road-worthy condition and its document having expired. The application seeking recall of its order dated 30.10.2009 was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order no.65 dated 20.06.2014. It was inter-alia noted by the District Forum that the petitioner had filed several applications alleging that the complainant had played a fraud upon the District Forum and he was never in possession of the vehicle either at the time of institution of the Consumer Complaint or during the period the case continued before the Consumer Fora. It had also been claimed before the District Forum that the vehicle was still in possession of the financer.
6. The order No.65 dated 20.06.2014 passed by the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal preferred against that order. It was held by the State Commission that the order passed in the Consumer Complaint having become final, the said appeal was not fit for admission. Being aggrieved from the above referred order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of Revision Petition No.4009 of 2014.
7. In Revision Petition No.4010 of 2014, the petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission dated 08.09.2014 holding that there was nothing wrong in the order of the District Forum requiring the petitioner to comply with the final order passed in the Consumer Complaint on 30.10.2009 which the State Commission had affirmed in FA No.456 of 2009.
8. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner as stated by his counsel, appears to be that the complainant having got the purchase of the truck financed, he was not in its possession at the time the Consumer Complaint was filed and pursued, the truck when brought to the District Forum was not in a road-worthy condition and valid documents of the truck were not brought alongwith the truck despite the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 having already been made to the complainant.
9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle ought to have been in a road-worthy condition when it was brought to
