The court emphasized the importance of evidence in proving delivery of goods in deficiency of service cases.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 28.2.2023 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karanataka (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 1472 of 2014 filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 15.7.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint No. 2/2014 filed by the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein). The Appeal was dismissed on the ground that the Petitioner could not produce the document to prove that the vehicle which was purchased by the Complainant / Respondent No. 1 had been delivered to him.

2. It is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the vehicle was delivered in fact to the brother - in - law (name not known) of the Complainant and therefore, the concurrent findings of the Foras below on this fact are perverse and are liable to be set aside.

3. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.

4. The brief admitted facts of the case are that the Complainant, who is an agriculturist, had bought a goods carriage vehicle from the Petitioner in the month of February 2013 for a total sum of Rs.11,60,659. He took a loan of Rs.10,53,270 to finance the vehicle at interest @ 14% p.a. which he had repaid in instalments. His contention had been that despite full payment of the price of the vehicle, the vehicle was not delivered to him.

5. The contention of the Petitioner before the District Forum was that the Complainant had not made the payment of the entire amount and he had to pay Rs.1,93,587 and Rs.5,000 towards handling and TP charges, however on his request a discount of Rs.56,768 was given to him. It was contended that the Complainant last paid Rs.70,000 but still sum of Rs.88,577 was to be paid by the Complainant for delivery of the vehicle. This amount was not paid by the Complainant. However, on his request and on request of his relatives and trusting their words that they will pay the balance amount shortly, the vehicle was delivered to him on completing the formalities of TP Registration etc. The Complainant, however, after taking the delivery of the vehicle did not pay the balance amount and a false report was lodged with the police about the non - delivery of the vehicle.

6. Parties led their evidence before the District Forum. After hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents filed by the parties, the District Forum reached to the conclusion as under:
11. On perusal of the documents and affidavit evidence of the complainant, it clearly shows that, complainant approached the OP 1 to purchase the above said vehicle and on 28.2.2013 he has deposited an amount of Rs.70,000 to the OP 1 vide receipt No. 995 as per Ex.A - 1. Again he paid an amount of Rs.70,080 on 3.5.2013 vide receipt No. SR39 and on 8.3.2013 he made another payment of Rs.18,500 by cash to the OP 1 vide receipt No. SR1019, to show the sale Xerox copies of receipts have been filed by OPs 1 & 2. The above said payment is also admitted by OPs 1 and 2 in their version at para - 8. On perusal of the Xerox copy of the documents filed by the complainant shows that, the above said vehicle was temporarily registered as KA - 25 TRM - 6252 on 1.3.2013 in the name of complainant and the said TP was valid for 1.3.2023 to 30.3.2013. As per the Xerox copy of the invoice No. 12P1269 dated 30.9.2012 shows that the total price of the vehicle was at Rs.11,60,659.52 after reduction of Rs.66,768.55. The Xerox copy of the release letter dated 22.2.2013 shows that within 3-4 days OP 3 would be released an amo