AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Agrawal,President Member;
M/s. Maharaja Tractors, have preferred this Revision Petition under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the State Commission”), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein has been dismissed and the Order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as “the District Forum”) has been affirmed.
I have heard Mr. Nikhil Jain, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have perused the impugned Order dated 28.09.2022, passed by the State Commission as also the Order dated 24.04.2019, passed by the District Forum, the grounds taken in the Memo of Revision Petition and the documents filed along with it.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner did not receive the entire consideration amount of Rs.3,70,000/- and therefore there is no question of refunding the amount as per directions given by the District Forum.
On a query being made, as to what is the reply to Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, wherein it has been mentioned that apart from making payment in cash a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by Cheque was also paid. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner admitted the receipt of the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- by Cheque. According to him the entire consideration of Rs.3,70,000/- was not paid and a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- still remains to be paid.
It may be mentioned here that before the District Forum the matter was proceeded ex parte as after Written Statement was filed nobody had appeared for the Opposite Party No. 1, that is the present Petitioner. In the reply filed by the Petitioner herein before the District Forum, the dates and amounts mentioned in Paragraph No. 4 of the Complaint was accepted. That being the position, it is not open to the Petitioner to say that a sum of Rs.1,60,000/- still remains to be paid.
The District Forum as also the State Commission on appreciation of facts and material on record had rightly held that Petitioner is liable to pay the amount.
The Revision Petition fails and is dismissed.