ORDER

A.K. Tiwari, Presiding Member—This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.05.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.58/2008 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent no.1 has been allowed.

2. The case of the complainant is such that on 26.02.2006 he had purchased a Gama Tempo Trax bearing registration no. MUJ-7 H-2706 through opposite party no.2 from opposite party no.1/appellant. Out of total price of Rs.4,63,000/- he got financial help for a sum of Rs.3,41,000/- from the opposite party no.3/respondent no.2. Balance amount of Rs.1,22,000/- , service and other charges Rs.5,870/-, Advance instalment Rs.11,172/- and insurance & other charges Rs.18,939/- total Rs.1,57,781/- was to be paid by the complainant/respondent no.1 to the opposite party no.1/appellant. Thereafter he paid Rs.70,000/- as cash, Rs.60,000/- amount of exchange of vehicle, Rs.12,000/- on 20.04.2006 and Rs.18,000/- on 22.06.2006 thus he paid Rs.2,219/- in excess to the opposite party no.1/appellant. It is alleged that even after making payment, the opposite party no.1 did not provide him sale-letter as also the insurance papers of the vehicle. The complainant therefore filed a complaint seeking compensation of Rs.2,38,400/-, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental and physical agony, Rs.10,000/- as costs totaling Rs.3,48,400/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.

3. The opposite party no.1 & 2 resisted the complaint stating that the complainant purchased the tractor for commercial purpose. The submission of the complainant that he had paid Rs.70,000/- in cash, Rs.18,000/- and Rs.12,000/- is concerned, in fact the breakup of 70,000/- is such that the complainant had paid Rs.12,000/- on 20.04.2006, Rs.45,000/- on 23.04.2006 and Rs.13,000/- on 03.05.2006 totaling Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter he paid Rs.18,000/- on 22.06.2006 and still Rs.9,781/- is still due against him. It is wrong to say that the complainant had paid Rs.2,219/- in excess. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4. The opposite party no. 3 resisted the complaint stating that the the amount of loan was to be repaid in 36 instalments within a period of 26.05.2006 to 10.03.2009. The complainant was irregular in repayment of loan. Since there is an arbitration agreement between the parties, therefore, the matter be referred to Arbitrator.

5. The District Commission allowing the complaint directed the opposite party no.1 and 2 to provide sale-letter, insurance papers and other documents relating to vehicle to the complainant within a period of 30 days, failing which Rs.100/- per day will be payable. It was further directed to refund excess amount of Rs.2,219/-. Compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with cost of Rs.2,000/- has also been awarded. Hence this appeal by the opposite party no.1/appellant.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

7. On perusal of record we find that earlier this appeal 1779/2008 filed by the opposite party no.1/appellant was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Commission on 07.11.2016. Against the said order, the appellant approached the National Commission in Revision Petition No.149/2018 before the National Commission. The Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 17.01.2020 condone the delay subject to payment of Rs.25,000/- and remanded the matter for hearing on merits to this Commission subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant. It is evident from the order sheet dated 28.02.2020 that the appellant has made payment of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent no.1/complainant on 05.02.2020 by bank draft dated 03.02.2020.

8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record as also the appeal memo, we find that learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per details given in appeal memo, the respondent no.1/complainant still have to pay Rs.9,781/-. To that effe