State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mohammad Shekh Salim vs Nurunnisha & Others on 3 September, 2012
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G.)
(A/11/3033)
Appeal No.752/2011
Instituted on : 12.12.2011
Mohammad Shekh Salim,
S/o Shri Shekh Shakar Musalman,
Proprietor - National Industries,
Sihawa Road,
Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Nurunnisha, W/o Late Shri Bahauddin,
R/o : Village - Barari,
Tehsil & District - Dhamtari (C.G.)
2. Pushpendra Sahu,
Agent, National Industries,
Sihawa Road,
Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.)
3. Branch Manager,
Punjab National Bank,
Branch - Kukrel,
Tehsil & District Dhamtari (C.G.) ... Respondents.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.C. VYAS, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SHRI V.K. PATIL, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri R.K. Bhawnani, for appellant.
Shri Pradeep Mishra, for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2, proceeded ex-parte. Shri Sameer Gupta, for respondent No.3.
ORAL ORDER Dated : 03/09/2012 PER: - HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S. C. VYAS, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against, order dated 05.01.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dhamtari (C.G.) // 2 // (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in Complaint Case No.27/2007, whereby the appellant herein, who was O.P.No.1 before District Forum, has been directed to pay Rs.2,41,025/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. 04.08.2007 till date of payment and also to pay Rs.6,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation to the respondent No.1/complainant.
2. The allegation of the respondent No.1/complainant in the complaint before District Forum was that a loan was sanctioned by respondent No.3/Bank to the respondent No.1/complainant for purchase of a Tractor along with implements and Trolley. The quotation of Rs.5,75,531/- was given by the appellant to the respondent No.1/complainant, on the basis of which the loan was sanctioned by the respondent No.3/Bank. Later on, the appellant at the place of new Tractor - Trolley, handed over a Tractor and an old Trolley. Other implements were not provided. The respondent No.3/ Bank has also paid the entire amount of loan to the appellant without verifying the Tractor, Trolley etc. Thus, both of them have committed deficiency in service. The Tractor and old Trolley were returned by the respondent No.1/complainant to the appellant. The prayer of the respondent No.1/complainant before District Forum was for compensation and for refund of the price paid of the Tractor and Trolley.
// 3 //
3. The complaint was contested by the appellant herein on the ground that no old Tractor or Trolley were provided by the appellant to the respondent No.1/complainant. The Tractor and Trolley, which were sold were to the satisfaction of the respondent No.1/complainant. A letter of satisfaction was also given by the respondent No.1/complainant to respondent No.3/Bank and therefore the respondent No.3/Bank had paid the entire amount of the loan to the appellant. It has also been denied that no Tractor and Trolley have been returned by the respondent No.1/complainant to the appellant. Other respondents/OPs remained absent before District Forum and case proceeded ex-parte against them.
4. Learned District Forum, by the impugned order came to the conclusion that the appellant has handed over old Tractor and Trolley to the respondent No.1/complainant, whereas the cost of new Tractor & Trolley was paid to him and thereby he committed deficiency in service. It has also been observed that those old Tractor and Trolley were returned by the respondent No.1/complainant to the appellant. The District Forum has calculated the amount of difference of price and then passed the award.
5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum.
// 4 //
6. In paragraph No.25 of the impugned order, the District Forum has stated that O.P.No.1, who is appellant before us, has already taken back the Tractor and Trolley and no document has been produced to show that new Tractor and Trolley were provided by him to the respondent No.1/complainant. It has also been observed that respondent No.3/Bank has failed to appear before District Forum and so it can be held that additional amount was also obtained by the appellant. On the basis of these reasoning, the award has been passed.
7. We are not satisfied with the reasoning given by the District Forum in the impugned order in favour of the respondent No.1/complainant. It is worth mentioning that before District Forum, respondent No.3/Bank had not filed any written version and nobody appeared, but even then, relevant documents were sent for consideration. Those documents are available in the record of the District Forum. It has been stated by the respondent No.3/Bank in the letter dated 05.09.2007, addressed to District Forum that after following all necessary procedures and when the respondent No.1/complainant expressed her satisfaction on the bill itself, then only the amount was paid to the dealer. Along with this letter, form which was filled by respondent No.1/complainant in the Bank, copy of bill issued by the appellant in favour of the respondent // 5 // No.1/complainant in respect of sale of Tractor, Trolley and implements and the receipt of payment of the amount and also another copy of the invoice on which the purchase was verified by some officer of the respondent No.3/Bank, which also bears signature of the respondent No.1/complainant, have been filed. Those documents were required to be considered by the District Forum before drawing any final conclusion. This exercise has also not been done by the District Forum. Apart from it, though respondent No.1/complainant in the affidavit has alleged that new Tractor and Trolley were not provided to her, but the fact has been controverted by the appellant in his affidavit by saying that a new Tractor and a new Trolley along with new Cage Wheel and new Nagar, all were provided to the respondent No.1/complainant and when she was fully satisfied then only purchased these implements and the Tractor & Trolley. The amount of Rs.45,000/- was still due against the respondent No.1/complainant.
8. Another affidavit of Shri Dinesh Kumar Sharma, has also been filed, who happens to be Supervisor in the National Industries, Dhamtari. In his affidavit also, some facts have been stated. It has been stated that new Tractor was provided, though Trolley was old and other implements were not provided. Thus, different facts have been stated by different witnesses and without proper appreciation of // 6 // these facts and considerations of documents the impugned order has been passed which can not sustain. Therefore it appears necessary to remand the case to the District Forum to consider the documents filed by the respondent No.3/Bank and to provide an opportunity to respondent No.3/Bank to come and contest the matter.
9. In view of aforesaid, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction to take into consideration the documents sent by the respondent No.3/Bank to it and also to provide an opportunity to the respondent No.3/Bank for filing written version and affidavit, if any and thereafter after providing opportunities to both parties for leading evidence, the complaint be decided afresh. Parties are directed to appear before District Forum on 01.10.2012. No order as to the cost of this appeal.
(Justice S.C.Vyas) (V.K. Patil)
President Member
/09/2012 /09/2012