Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Complaint Case No.56 of 2008

Nain Singh Bisht

S/o Late Sri Bahadur Singh Bisht

Presently R/o Village Kholi

P.O. Azera, District Pithragarh

Uttarakhand

                                                                                ….Complainant.

  Versus

1-Rajeev Khandelwal

   S/o not known to the complainant

2-Salil Khandelwal

   S/o not known to the complainant

   Both the above partners in the firm Salil Auto

   Bareilly and R/o 205, Civil Lines, Bareilly

                                                                                    .…Opposite Parties.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

None appeared for the opposite parties.

Date  26.8.2021

JUDGMENT

Per Sri Rajendra  Singh,  Member-

The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the opposite parties for a relief of directing the opposite parties to pay ₹ 460,000/– to the complainant which includes ₹ 114,000/– plus ₹ 344,000/– as 18% interest per annum from respective rates of payment after the filing of the complaint, to pay ₹ 5 lakhs to the complainant as physical harassment, to pay ₹ 5 lakhs to the complainant for mental harassment and ₹ 6 lakhs towards cost of the suit.

In short complainant’s case is that, that he paid ₹ 114,002 the opposite parties for purchase of an Eicher Canter truck in instalments for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment and some amount having been paid by Surya Auto financer on behalf of the complainant. Despite payment of the

:2:

aforesaid amount of ₹ 114,000/– the opposite parties failed to deliver the aforesaid truck to the complainant till 12 January 1993. On 22 January 1993 the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund his aforesaid deposit along with interest accrued thereon. Thereafter the complainant kept asking the opposite parties in 1993 for refund and every time he was given assurance that the amount would be refunded soon. That 1994 onwards, the complainant started suffering of ill-health due to tension, anxiety and tuberculosis for which he is still taking treatment and therefor could not meet the opposite parties personally. In the year 2008, there was some improvement in the health of the complainant and therefor on 4 April 2008 and again on 27 August 2008, the complainant met the holy parties for the refund of the aforesaid amount of ₹ 114,000/– along with interest and was given the assurance that the amount would be refunded soon. Till date the opposite parties neither provided the truck nor refunded the aforesaid amount to the complainant. Hence this complaint has been filed.

As there is inordinate delay in filing of the complaint, the complainant has filed an application dated 17^th November 2008 for condonation of delay supported by an affidavit. In his affidavit the complainant reiterated the facts are of the complaint case.

We have heard the learned counsel of the complainant Sri Sushil Kumar Sharma on the issue of condonation of delay. None appeared from the opposite parties.

We have perused  the application for condonation of delay. The complainant has accepted in para seven that in the year 1994 onwards he could not meet the opposite party. After that he met the opposite parties only on 4 April