AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present revision petition no. 3179 of 2015 has been filed against the judgment dated 12.08.2015 of the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (''the State Commission'') in First Appeal no. 1070 of 1998.
Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the present revision petition are that the respondent/ complainant purchased a truck for his livelihood and he paid a total cost of Rs.2,67,322/- on 29.01.1994. The petitioner/ opposite party assured to deliver the vehicle within a week. The respondent, however, received a letter dated 07.02.1994 informing him of the escalation in the price of the vehicle by Rs.14,500/- and that with effect from 04.02.1994, the delivery of the vehicle could be taken on payment of the said additional amount. Therefore the respondent deposited the said extra amount on 17.02.1994 and he immediately received the vehicle which proved that the petitioner kept a ready stock of the vehicles and he deliberately delayed the delivery for illegal gain and it caused mental and physical harassment to the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed the aforesaid complaint and prayed for refund of Rs.14,500/- with interest of 12% and compensation of Rs.1000/-
The petitioner/ opposite party contented before the District Forum that the respondent had purchased the vehicle for his commercial purpose, hence, he does not come under the purview of the definition of consumer. Further, the vehicle was not in stock and he was given the vehicle as soon as he paid the fill price. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur (''the District Forum'') vide its order dated 30.03.1998, while allowing the complaint observed as under: " After receiving the full cost on 29.01.2004 and price was escalated by 04.02.1994, therefore, the demand of escalated amount of Rs.14,500/- by the opposite party is a clear cut deficiency in service. Opposite parties has not given any reasons for committing the delay.
Therefore, we direct to the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to refund Rs.14,500/- charged duty escalation through the opposite party no. 1, we also direct to the opposite party for payment of 12% interest since 17.02.1994 till to the actual payment on charge of the deposit of the extra amount.
Complainant is entitled for compensation for Rs.1000/- for causing physical and mental harassment.
Opposite party no. 2 and 3 is directed to refund Rs.14,500/- with 12% interest through opposite party no. 1 within a month since 17.02.1994 and also as compensation of Rs.1,000/- payable within one month. If the above order is not complied within one month the opposite party is liable to pay 18% interest till actual payment".
Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission while dismissing the appeal observed as under: "The Commission after hearing the argument of both the parties and after perusal of the record reached the conclusion that once the total cost of Rs.2,67,322/- was deposited by the complainant on dated 29.01.1994, therefore, the delivery of the vehicle should be made at the same time, but it was not delivered and a letter dated 07.02.1994 was issued for escalation of the price. Therefore, on perusal of the record, we are of the view, that the escalation of the price was accepted since dated 04.02.1994. But the total cost of the vehicle was received on 29.01.1994 which proves that the complainant is not bound to pay the said extra amount, but the complainant was helpless and paid the extra amount on 17.12.1994. Thus, it is well established and proves that there is deficiency in service. Hence, there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Hence, the order and judgment passed by the District Forum is based on facts and law which is not liable to be interfere. Therefore the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Appeal is dismissed. The order passed by District Forum, Gorakhpur in case no. 184 of 1994 on 30.03.1998 is confirmed".
Hence, the present revision petition.
I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the record. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that they were within their rights to charge higher price as the cost of the vehicle had been revised on 04.02.1994. His contention is supported by the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Raj vs Competent Motors Co. Pvt., Ltd., and Anr.
I have gone through the record. After hearing the counsel, it is seen that there are concurrent findings against the petitioner. Further, the amount involved is very paltry amount. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and another , (2012) 8 SCC 781 observed that: "Number of litigation in our country is on the rise, for small and trivial matters, people and sometimes central and State Governments and their instrumentalities Bank, nationalized or private, come to courts may be due to ego clash or to save the officers'' skin. Judicial system is over-burdened, naturally causes delay in adjudication of disputes. Mediation centres opened in various parts of our country have, to some extent, eased the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel and the light is far away. On more than one occasion this court has reminded the Central Government, State Government and other instrumentalities as well as to the various banking institutions to take earnest efforts to resolve the disputes at their end. At times, some give and take attitude should be adopted or both will sink. Unless, serious questions of law of general importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large number of persons or the stakes are very high, courts jurisdiction cannot be invoked or resolution of small and trivial matters. We are really disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters are being brought to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and this case falls in that category".
The Apex Court further held;
"12 . We are of the view that issues raised before us are purely questions of facts examined by the three forums including the National Disputes Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the important question of law to be decided by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise for all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court".
14 . We, in this case, find no error in the decisions taken by all fact finding authorities including the National Disputes Redressal Commission. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of 10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period of one month. Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether 25,950/- for a claim of 15,000/-,apart from to and fro travelling expenses of the Bank officials. Let God save the Gramins ."
In view of the principle of law laid down in Gurgaon Gramin Bank vs Khazani and Anr., as a paltry amount of Rs.14,500/- only is involved and this litigation is going for more than 22 years, therefore we are not inclined to entertain this revision petition. In view of the afore-going reasons, as also the observations by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Gurgaon Gramin Bank (supra) in litigating in trivial matters, without there being any serious question of law, the Revision Petition is dismissed.