National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Shankarnarayan & Anr. vs B.T. Jayanthi on 18 February, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3847 OF 2011 (Against the Order dated 10/08/2011 in Appeal No. 2233/2011 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SHANKARNARAYAN & ANR. S/o S.V. Chandrasekaran, R/o 82 Sai Annapoorna,2nd Main 2nd Cross, Kandya Nagar, Srirampura, 2nd Stage Mysore Karnataka 2. Meghraj, S/o Sidhappa M, R/o 21 Shivalaya, Viajayanagar, 2nd Stage, Gudenahalli Road,Hassan Mysore - karnataka ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. B.T. JAYANTHI Vivekananda Road, 1st Cross Road Hassan - 573201 Karnataka 2. - - ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Saransh Jain, Advocate with
Mr. Madhavam Sharma, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Amit A. Pai, Advocate
Dated : 18 Feb 2019 ORDER
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners Shankakrnaryan & anr. against the order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short 'the State Commission') in FA No.2233/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent complainant booked Hyundai 120 Magna Car with the petitioner company. It is the case of the complainant that even after paying the total amount for the car the car was not being delivered to her. Later the car was delivered to her on 28.1.2010 along with service book temporary registration and other papers, however form 21 and 22 were not given to the complainant so she could not get the permanent registration of the vehicle. The complainant lodged a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hassan, ( in short 'the District Forum') being CC No.134/2010 dated 06.07.2011. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant had not paid Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore, the vehicle was not being delivered to the complainant but the complainant forcibly took away the vehicle from the Hassan showroom of the opposite parties on 28.1.2010 when the complainant along with her husband and 25 'Gundas' came to the showroom and threatened the staff and forcibly took away the vehicle. Opposite parties also filed an FIR with the police in respect of this incident. It was further alleged that the complainant had allegedly paid Rs.1,00,000/- to one Mr. Praveen who was consultant with the opposite parties and who did not have any authority to accept payment on behalf of the opposite parties. Moreover, there was no commitment to give discount of Rs.25,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Thus, the petitioners did not receive Rs.1,25,000/- and therefore form 21 and 22 were not issued. Claiming no deficiency in service OPs requested to dismiss the complaint. The District Forum, however, allowed the complaint vide its order dated 06.07.2011 as under:-
"1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 shall hand over form No.21 & 22 as per Motor Vehicle Rules in respect of the vehicle bearing Registration No.KA.09-H-3715 and Chassis No.MAL BBSI BLAM 137679 and Engine No.GHLAAM 322064 and all the other documents required for permanent registration of the vehicle within one month to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,46,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and the expenses of the complaint of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Failure to pay the amount, on the total amount an interest at the rate of 10% per annum be paid till the entire amount is cleared.
3. Complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed without cost."
3. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum the opposite parties preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No.2233/2011 which has been dismissed at the admission stage vide order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the State Commission.
4. Hence the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that payment of Rs.4,41,627/- is accepted as the same was received from Canara Bank as loan taken by the complainant from Canara Bank. The fora below have accepted the assertion of the complainant, that the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to one Mr. Praveen by way of 3 booking amount on 3 booking forms being Rs.10,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.40,000/- having been paid in cash to Mr. Praveen on different dates and last being on 3.12.2009 whereas the receipt has been given on 1.12.2009. Learned counsel argued that if the third instalment was paid on 3rd December, 2009 how was it possible to give receipt for total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 1st December, 2009. This clearly establishes that receipt dated 1.12.2009 is a fake receipt having been prepared by the complainant in connivance with Mr. Praveen. The learned counsel asserted that Mr. Praveen was not an employee of the company and he was only consultant to bring customers to the company for purchase of the cars and he was not authorised to accept any payments from the customers. It is a common knowledge that the payments are required to be made in the name of the company and the complainant should have given this amount in the name of the company and to the company itself and not any sales person or consultant of the company. Thus, the petitioner company was justified in not handing over form 21 and for 22 to the complainant as the complainant has not made the full payment to the company and had forcibly taken away the car from the showroom of the company.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent complainant stated that it was Mr. Praveen who was dealing with the complainant in the capacity of sales manager. He has received the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and a proper receipt for the same has been given. It is true that Rs.1,00,000/- has been given in three instalments but a consolidated receipt has been issued on 1.12.2009 whereas the last instalment was paid on 3.12.2009. Actually receipt was issued when the last instalment was paid. It seems that inadvertently date of 1st December has been put on the receipt instead of 3rd December, 2009. This inadvertent mistake cannot make the receipt invalid. It was further stated by the learned counsel that rebate of Rs.25,000/- was given to the complainant and the same is evident from the letter dated 9.12.2009 sent by Advaith Motors which also bears reference number relating to Mr. Praveen.
8. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant that while receiving the payment of Rs.4,41,627/- it is recorded by the opposite party company that this was by way of balance payment. This itself shows that the payment of Rs.4,41,627/- was the balance payment. This also implies that after receiving this amount the company has received the total payment of Rs.5,41,627/-. Thus, there was no justification for the opposite parties to detain the issuance of form 21 and form 22. Due to non issuance of these forms the complainant could not get the permanent registration number for the vehicle and therefore, the vehicle could not be driven on road. The District Forum has rightly ordered for issuance of these forms and for payment of compensation of Rs.1,46,000/-. And the State Commission has rightly dismissed the appeal of the opposite parties.
9. Learned counsel further argued that both the fora below have given concurrent finding and in such cases the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and this Commission cannot reassess the facts in the revision petition. On these grounds, it was requested to dismiss the revision petition.
10. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record.
11. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the complainant that the FIR lodged against the complainant has been thoroughly investigated by the police and police has filed the final report dated 31st January, 2011. Police has also found that the complainant has paid Rs.1,00,000/- to Mr. Praveen and therefore, the complainant has paid the full amount in respect of the vehicle and the vehicle was delivered to the complainant after getting order from the Bangalore office. This clearly falsified the assertion of the opposite parties that the complainant took away the vehicle forcibly from the showroom. Fora below have relied upon the receipt dated 1.12.2009 for Rs.1,00,000/- and fora below have accordingly concluded that the complainant has paid total amount of Rs.5,41,627/- which was required to be paid after deducting a rebate of Rs.25,000/- which was agreed by the opposite parties and the same was communicated to the complainant vide their letter dated 9.12.2009 issued by the Hassan Branch. Opposite parties have themselves filed an FIR against Mr. Praveen on 27.1.2010 stating that Mr. Praveen has accepted payments from the customers and have misappropriated these funds. F.I.R. also reveals that Mr. Praveen was working as sales person at the Hassan branch of the opposite parties. This FIR itself lends support to the fact of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to Mr. Praveen by the complainant. It is difficult for a customer to know which person in the showroom is an employee of the company and which person is not an employee of the company. If a person is working as a salesman and is accepting the payment and giving receipt for the same the customer has no reason to doubt the genuinity of that person. As both the fora below have given concurrent finding the aspect of payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to Mr. Praveen and to the fact of rebate of Rs.25,000/- having been allowed by the company it is difficult for this Commission to reassess these facts in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-
"Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora."
12. Complainant, clearly has paid the total amount of Rs.5,41,627/- and if an employee of the company has misappropriate some payment made by the complainant, complainant cannot be asked to make payment again. It is for the company to recover this amount from its employee. Though the company has denied receipt dated 1.12.2009 and letter dated 09.12.2009 both these documents seem prima facie having been issued by the Hassan Office of the opposite party. In my opinion, no customer will fabricate these documents and commit forgery when a complaint case with the police was already going on against the complainant. In such situation, I feel that these documents have been rightly relied upon by the fora below.
13. A perusal of final report dated 30.01.2011 shows that police has accepted the version of the complainant that he has made payment of Rs.1,00,000/- to Mr. Praveen an employee of the opposite party company. One of the employee of the Hassan branch of the opposite party has also stated that the complainant had not taken away the vehicle forcibly but the same was released to the complainant after getting an order from the Bangalore office of the opposite party. Thus the final report submitted by the police demolishes the premise on which the opposite parties were resisting the complaint. The incident of taking away the vehicle forcibly has been stated to be of 28.1.2010 whereas the FIR has been lodged by the opposite party on 12.2.2010. This clearly speaks that the lodging of the FIR is only an afterthought because by that time Mr. Praveen had misappropriated the Rs.1,00,000/- given by the complainant and had disappeared from the scene.
14. From the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant had paid the total agreed amount for the car after deduction of the rebate of Rupees 25,000/- and the complainant was entitled to have the car along with forms No.21 & 22 and clearly the OPs were deficient when they did not supply forms No.21 & 22, which were necessary for getting the vehicle registered on a permanent basis. Clearly, the complainant has suffered injury as he could not get the permanent registration due to non-supply of forms 21 & 22 by the opposite party and thereby he was not able to make any use of the purchased car. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case.
15. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 10.08.2011 of the State Commission, which calls for an interference from this Commission. Accordingly, RP No.3847 of 2011 is dismissed with no order as to cost.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER