State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Suri Seles Bullet Agences Pvt Ltd vs Ahad Hussain on 19 July, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/951/2018 ( Date of Filing : 22 May 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/04/2018 in Case No. C/123/2016 of District Bareilly-I) 1. Suri Seles Bullet Agences Pvt Ltd Front of GulabRai Inter College B.D.A. Colony P.S. Premnagar Bareilly Through Director Rupali Suri ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Ahad Hussain S/O Rahat Hussain R/O 53 Chaudhery Talab Thana Quila Bareilly ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 19 Jul 2022 Final Order / Judgement Reserved State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U.P. Lucknow. Appeal No.951 of 2018 Suri Sales Bullet Agencies (Pvt.) Ltd., in front of Gulab Rai Inter College, BDA Colony, P.S. Premnagar, Bareilly through its Director Rupali Suri. ....Appellant. Versus Ahad Husain s/o Rahat Husain, R/o 53, Chaudhery Talab, Thana, Quila, Bareilly. ....Respondent. Present:- 1- Hon'ble Sri Rajendra Singh, Presiding Member. 2- Hon'ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member. Sri S.K. Srivastava, Advocate for the appellant. Sri Anil Kumar Mishra, Advocate for respondent. Date 28.07.2021 JUDGMENT
Per Sri Rajendra Singh, Member- This appeal has been preferred under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed in complaint case No.123/2018, Ahad Husain vs. Suri Sales Bullet Agency by the Ld. District Consumer Forum-I, Bareilly.
The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the complainant had approached the Appellant for purchase of a Bullet Motorcycle for which he paid Rs.149,000/- on 03.05.2016 and went with his father-in-law and paid the full amount. The said motorcycle was promised to be deliverd in five days just before one day prior to his marriage but the same was not delivered and again on 05.06.2016 he went with his relatives and again it was not delivered on vehement (2) protest by the complainant and his accompanying relatives a cheque of Rs.149,000/ dated 05.06.2016 was given which when presented through the bank, was dishonored with the reason of 'stop payment'. Thus, neither the payment was given nor the motorcycle delivered. Thereafter, the complaint was filed on 15.09.2016.
On getting notice the appellant filed reply vehemently denying the allegations of the complainant and set that the complainant came to the shop and deposited Rs.5000/- as booking amount and was issued a proper computerised receipt. Thereafter he came to the shop and dealt privately with one Rama Shankar Kushwaha and gave money privately in cash to him and he issued alleged fake receipt on blank papers allegedly written and signed byKushwaha in his own writing. It may be pertinent to mention here that all money receipts issued by the company are in computerised form and the final invoice is issued only after the delivery of the vehicle along with sale invoice and other legal documents. None of which has been done in present case. On 13.05.2016 the respondent and his relatives and friends came to the shop of the appellant and created a huge ruckus. They forced the appellant to issue him a cheque dated 06.06.2016 for an amount of Rs.149,000/- while no money was received by the appellant. The appellant has filed a criminal case against said Kushwaha who had been arrested under the various sections of the IPC and the bail application has also been rejected by the court and the case is pending for expedite trial. The District Forum without appreciating the evidence and the pleadings of the appellant arbitrarily and unfairly allowed the complaint for Rs.174,000/- with interest at a rate of 7% from (3) the date of judgment.
The learned Forum completely failed to appreciate the facts of the case and has passed the impugned judgment in total ignorance of the law and is based on conjecture and surmises. The impugned judgment is totally wrong, unfair, unjust and against the spirit of consumer protection. The complainant himself paid money to the said person and have taken a fake receipt despite the fact that he has been provided a computerised receipt at the time of booking. The impugned order is totally illegal, against of the case. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious and also mischievous. The matter involves both civil and criminal so it ought to have been dismissed and it should be decided by the civil and criminal courts. Therefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble commission may graciously be pleased to set aside the judgement of the learned Forum and allow the appeal.
We have heard the counsel of the appellant Sri S.K. Srivastava and ld. Counsel for the respondent Sri Anil Kumar Mishra. We have perused the pleadings, documents and evidence available on record.
We have seen the impugned judgment. It is clear and the complainant has deposited the booking amount of Rs.5000/- on 14.06.2016 and a computerised receipt has been issued to him which has been annexed with this appeal. The disputed amount of Rs.149,000/- has been handed over to Rama Shankar Kushwaha by the complainant. Whether such a big amount can be given in cash to an employee of a firm? Booking amount only Rs.5000/- was deposited after receiving a computerised receipt which was due process regarding depositing of any money for any purchase of such high-value.
(4)It is unbelievable that the complainant handed over Rs.149,000/- in cash to an employee of the firm/dealer. Why did he not get a computerized receipt for that when earlier he had received a computerised receipt of the amount. The owner/appellant is not responsible for such transaction which was not known to him. He was unaware of such transaction and this fault was on the part of the respondent/complainant. By mobocracy he received a cheque of Rs.149,000/- and the appellant stopped the payment of the cheque. When you did not pay amount to a person how can you receive a cheque from that particular person. You were also involved in this unfair trade practice and transaction for which appellant was not responsible. We have seen the judgement of the learned Forum which is not according to law. What should be done or what ought to be done is not the crux of this case. The impugned judgment is not legal and it is liable to be set aside.
ORDER The appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum-I, Bareilly in complaint case No.123/2018 is set aside.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
(5)
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court.
Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Rajendra Singh)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA II
Court 2
[HON'BLE MR. Rajendra Singh] PRESIDING MEMBER
[HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena] JUDICIAL MEMBER