Raj Kumar Srivastava vs United Automobiles & 2 Ors

C. Viswanath, J

The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 2814 of 2013 dated 08.01.2018.

In the Complaint case, on 17.10.2010, the Petitioner purchased a Mahindra Alfa three wheeler from Respondent No.2 for Rs.1,52,175/- remitting a cash of Rs.47,900/-.Further, Rs.1,10,000/- was financed by Respondent No. 3 and this amount was directly paid to Respondent No. 2.The vehicle was delivered to the Petitioner, but Respondent No.2 did not provide any sale receipt of the vehicle to the Petitioner. The Petitioner, therefore, could neither register the vehicle nor could use it and the vehicle got junked due to which he suffered loss. The Petitioner sent a written Complaint to the Respondents for not providing the sale letter, but in vain. The Petitioner also sent a legal notice on 15.01.2011 through his counsel by registered post but till date neither the sale letter nor reply to the legal notice was given. Complaint was, therefore, filed.

Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which he contended that Respondent No.2 was ready to provide the sale letter. As requested by the Petitioner, Respondent No. 2 sent the sale letter to Mahindra & Mahindra Company for financing, but later, the Petitioner wrote a letter seeking finance from Sriram Finance Company. Thus, the Petitioner had himself committed a mistake. The Petitioner filed the Complaint with an intention not to pay the instalments. When the paper came to Respondent No.2 from Sriram Finance Company, then several messages were sent to the Petitioner to receive the sale letter but the Petitioner was not ready to accept the sale letter. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 sent the sale letter through registered post in the name of the Petitioner but the Petitioner did not accept the sale letter and returned the same. The Petitioner was using the vehicle and making profit from the vehicle. The Petitioner instituted the Complaint before the Forum for not paying the money. For registration of the vehicle, the finance company took the original receipt on 05.09.2011. Thus, the Complaint of the Petitioner was liable to be rejected.

The District Forum, vide order dated 07.09.2012, allowed the Complaint and Respondent No.1 and 2 were directed to pay Rs.1,55,000/- to the Petitioner towards compensation within a period of 30 days and the amount taken in excess over the cost, amounting to Rs.5,900.00 be also returned to the Petitioner alongwith interest @12% annually from 04.11.2010, the date when the Opposite Party received the cheque till the date of actual payment. Respondent No.1 and 2 and other Respondents were directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the Petitioner towards Costs.

Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 08.01.2018, partly allowed the Appeal of Respondent No.1 and modified the order directing Respondent No.2 and 3 to provide sale receipt of the vehicle to Respondent No.1 within a period of one month. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 were directed to refund Rs.5900/- to the Petitioner which had been received in excess from him within a period of one month and on the said amount also pay an interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment. In addition to it the District Forum had assessed the damages which was more than the price of the vehicle. It would be in the interest of justice to award Rs.20000/- to the Petitioner towards damages. The Appellant should pay the amount to the Petitioner within a month. In case payment is not made within a month, the Petitioner would be  entitled to get interest @9% on this amount.

The Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission against the order of the State Commission.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. I have also carefully gone through the evidence on record.

Respondent No. 1 & 2 could not prove that they had issued the sale receipt to the Petitioner before the District Forum by way of evidence.It is also not possible to believe the reasoning given by Respondent No. 2 that the Petitioner had not approached it, seeking the sale letter.An individual who paid more than the value of the vehicle would certainly expect, demand and obtain the sale letter.In the absence of the sale letter, the registration of the vehicle could not be done and the Complainant could not use the vehicle.This certainly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.However, the District Forum erred in assessing the damages as more than the value of the vehicle, which has been in possession of the Petitioner.The State Commission has rightly reduced the damages awarded by the District Forum and I see no reason to interfere with the same.Order of the State Commission is upheld and confirmed and the Revision Petition is dismissed.