AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Deepa Sharma, Presiding Member
The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against the order dated 28.02.2023 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 15.07.2014 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint No.02/2014 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.
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.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
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 ₹11,60,659/-. He took a loan of ₹10,53270/- 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.
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 ₹1,93,587/- and ₹5,000/- towards handling and TP charges, however on his request a discount of ₹56,768/- was given to him. It was contended that the Complainant last paid ₹70,000/- but still sum of ₹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.
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:
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 28.02.2013 he has deposited an amount of ₹70,000/- to the OP 1 vide receipt No.995 as per Ex.A-1. Again he paid an amount of ₹70,080/- on 03.05.2013 vide receipt No.SR39 and on 08.03.2013 he made another payment of ₹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 01.03.2013 in the name of complainant and the said TP was valid for 01.03.2023 to 30.03.2013. As per the Xerox copy of the invoice No.12P1269 dated 30.09.2012 shows that the total price of the vehicle was at ₹11,60,659-52 after reduction of ₹66,768-55. The Xerox copy of the release letter dated 22.02.2013 shows that within 3-4 days OP 3 would be released an amount of ₹10,07,083/- to OPs 1 and 2, which is not in dispute. Ex.A-2 shows that the RTO, Chitradurga has given an endorsement dated 18.04.2013 to the complainant with respect to the above said vehicle for registration to produce the original sale certificate, Form No.21, 22, 22A & 19 along with vehicle within 7 days. The Xerox copy of the purchase and sale details show that at Sl.No.10, complainant purchased the above said vehicle under Invoice No.12P 1269 dated 30.09.2012.
On perusal of the version, affidavit evidence and the documents filed by OPs 1 and 2 show that the vehicle cost for ₹12,00,660/-. As per the contention of the OPs 1 and 2 still the complainant was to pay ₹88,577/- to OPs 1 and 2 for delivery of the vehicle. OPs 1 and 2 further stated that, the vehicle was duly delivered to brother of wife of the complainant on taking signature of his and another as per the direction of the complainant. It is further stated that while taking delivery of the vehicle they have given Cell Number and the matter can be ascertained. It is further fact that during that period the vehicle was being run by the complainant and still he had given such false and frivolous complaint to gain illegally. OPs have taken further contention that, complainant having got delivered the vehicle much before paying the entire amount and tried to get registration of vehicle by illegal means and thereafter though running the vehicle with the assistance of his relatives gave a false complaint against these OPs stating that the vehicle was not delivered at all. This sort of conduct and attitude of the complainant is not fair and proper and also not justified. OPs 1 & 2 have taken further contention that, now the vehicle was seized by OP 3 for their outstanding dues. On perusal of the version and affidavit evidence of the OP 3, OP 3 has not stated anything or admitted about seizing of the above said vehicle. In this complaint OP 3 has made formal party and there is no allegation against OP 3. On perusal of the documents filed by OPs 1 & 2, Ex.B-1 the invoice dated 12.03.2013 shows the cost of the vehicle was at ₹12,00,660/-. Ex.B-2 is the sales invoice dated 25.02.2013 for an amount of ₹12,00,660/-. Ex.B-3 is the release letter dated 22.02.2013 issued by OP 3 to OPs 1 & 2. Ex.B-4 is the Motor Endorsement Schedule, Ex.B-5 is the Police Notice dated 10.06.2013 issued by the Town Police, Chitradurga to OP 2. Ex.B-6 is the reply to the Ex.B-5. Ex.B-7 is the Ledger Account for the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 shows the closing balance was at ₹11,65,660/- which clearly shows that the document was printed on 14.03.2014 at 14-56 hours. It is further shows that on 25.02.2013, OP 2 received an amount of ₹10,07,083. Xerox copy of the receipt No.SR 39 dated 03.05.2013 shows an amount of ₹70,080/- and also receipt SR No.1019 dated 08.03.2013 for ₹18,500/- have been received by OP 1 from complainant with respect to the above said vehicle bearing model No.LPT 1109 for 36 HD. As per the contention of the OPs 1 and 2 the complainant has paid the balance amount of ₹88,577/-. Ex.B-7 clearly show that complainant has paid ₹88,577/- which shows the closing the balance. The Xerox copy of the FIR and complaint dated 07.06.2013 shows that, the officials of OPs 1 to 3 have allegedly committed an offence punishable u/Sec.463, 465, 406, 420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Still the investigation is pending. The documents filed by OPs 1 and 2 does not show that they have delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The Advocate for the complainant argued that, on which date OPs 1 and 2 have delivered the vehicle and to whom they have delivered the same and the signature of the relatives of the complainant taken on the delivery book but OPs have failed to produce the document to prove the same. Therefore, the OPs 1 and 2 have not delivered the above said vehicle to the complainant and thereby they have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
On perusal of the entire case records and documents, OPs 1 and 2 have failed to show that they have delivered the vehicle to the complainant and OPs 1 and 2 failed to prove the contentions taken by them and also OPs 1 and 2 failed to prove the OP 3 seized the vehicle as stated in their version. As per Ex.B-7, OPs 1 and 2 received an amount of ₹11,65,660/- from the complainant and it is the duty of the OPs 1 and 2 to deliver the above said vehicle to the complainant. OPs 1 and 2 should not escape from their liability. OPs 1 and 2 have not produced any documents to show that they have delivered the vehicle to the brother of wife of the complainant. Therefore, the OPs 1 and 2 are liable to deliver the vehicle Tata Motor LPT NO.1109 to the complainant or to repay a sum of ₹11,65,660/- paid by the complainant to OPs 1 and 2 and also OPs 1 and 2 are liable to pay interest at 6% p.a. from 28.02.2013 till realization and also liable to pay ₹5,000/- towards mental agony and ₹3,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, we find there is merit in the contention taken by the complainant and so point No.1 is held as affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative to the complainant.”
Thereafter, District Forum issued the following directions:
It is ordered that complaint filed by complainant U/section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 is partly allowed.
It is ordered that, OPs 1 and 2 are directed to deliver the vehicle Tata Motor LPT NO.1109 to the complainant or to pay a sum of ₹11,65,666/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from 28.02.2013 till relation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
It is further ordered that, OPs 1 and 2 are directed to pay ₹5,000/- towards mental agony and ₹3,000/- towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant.
It is further ordered that, the complaint filed as against OP 3 is hereby dismissed.
Accordingly, complaint is partly allowed.”
This order was impugned before the State Commission. The State Commission after re-assessing the evidences on record and hearing the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties, concurred with the findings of the District Forum and has held as under:
“7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx We also agree with the order passed by the District Consumer Commission because it is an evident that the Respondent No.1 has purchased the said vehicle bearing No.LPT No.1109 for 36 HD under invoice No.12T1269 dated 13-9-2012. It is also evident that the respondent has paid full amount of the said vehicle to the appellant. However, in spite of payment of the full amount of the vehicle, the appellants have not delivered the vehicle to the respondent No.1. As per the contention of the appellants they have delivered the vehicle to the brother of wife of the respondent No.1, but the appellants have not produced any documents to show that they have delivered the vehicle to the brother of wife of the respondent No.1 and also not produced the documents relevant that on which date they have delivered the vehicle. The appellants have also not produced any letter from the respondent No.1 to appellants that the direction was given by the respondent No.1 to the appellants regarding the delivery of the vehicle. However the appellants contended that they have taken signature of the brother of the wife of the respondent No.1 at the time of delivery of the vehicle, but there is no any documents produced by the appellants. The appellants have produced the gate pass which is not sufficient to prove that the vehicle is delivered to the respondent No.1. At the time of delivery of the vehicle, it is duty of the appellants to handover the documents to respondent No.1 such as tax receipt, registration copy, pollution certificate along with copy of the vehicle insurance policy, however there is no such document on record. Further the appellants contended that, the Opposite Party No.3 has seized the vehicle of the respondent No.1, but no sufficient documents produced by the appellants to show that the vehicle is seized by the Opposite Party No.3.
Hence, considering the facts and discussion made here, we are of the opinion that, respondent No.1 is entitled for the vehicle or refund of the amount which was paid by him to purchase the vehicle along with interest. Hence, the order passed by the District Consumer Commission is just and proper. No interference is required. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner.
An application for filing of additional documents has been filed which cannot be allowed at this stage when there are concurrent findings of the Foras below. These documents which the Petitioner wants to file were available earlier but were not filed before the Foras below. The application is rejected.
During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to bring to my notice any document on record which could show that the vehicle had been delivered to the Complainant/Respondent no.1. In view of this, it cannot be said that the findings of the Foras below are perverse.
It is settled proposition of law that this Commission cannot substitute its own finding to the finding of the Fora below when the findings are concurrent in nature. This Commission has no jurisdiction to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences. Its revisional jurisdiction is confined only to the point where it is pointed out that there is jurisdictional error in the impugned order or there is miscarriage of justice. It has been so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. – (2011) 11 SCC 269” has held as under:
“23. 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 than 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 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 findings of two Fora”.
Again in “Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286,” the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:
“17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”
In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N. Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction.”
There is no merit in the present Revision Petition. Revision Petition is dismissed in limine.