RAVINDRA GOWDA Vs. SACHITRA AUTOMOBILE AND FABRICATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present respondent had instituted a suit against the present appellant in the Court of Prl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & C.J.M., at Shivamogga, (henceforth for brevity referred to as "the trial Court") in O.S.No.319/2006, for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,16,200/- with interest thereupon.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that it was an authorised dealer of Mahashaktiman Shrachi Power Tiller, having its Regional Office at Bengaluru. The plaintiff was one of its agent, authorized and employed to sell the said Tillers at Shivamogga and Chikmagalore Districts. The Union of India and State of Karnataka had evolved and implemented a joint scheme to grant subsidy to Power Tiller purchased by small bona fide agriculturists for their bona fide purposes to enable them to grow more food. The subsidy amount extended was 50% of the Tiller price and the condition to grant subsidy was the balance 50% of the price was to be met and paid by the purchaser. The further condition was that the purchasing agriculturist was to pay the full Tiller price to the seller and obtain receipt for the same and produce the same before the concerned Assistant Director of Agriculture and on the said receipt only, the Assistant Director of Agriculture was to direct the seller to deliver the Power Tiller to the purchaser with all its accessories and documents. The seller, on receipt of such direction, was to deliver the Power Tiller with all those documents to the purchaser with a Temporary Registration Certificate. The purchaser thereafter to claim the subsidy amount through the Assistant Director of Agriculture and he would be released in his favour the subsidy amount of Rs.45,000/- by cheque.

(3.) The intending agriculturists to purchase the Power Tiller were in need of necessary funds to make payment of full Tiller price to the seller and having no funds, had developed an understanding with the seller. That the seller to issue a receipt indicating the Tiller price as received from the intending purchasers, without, in fact, receiving any amount from the purchaser on the assurance of the purchasers that they would pay the Tiller price as mentioned in the receipt issued, but, after receipt of the subsidy amount from the Government. This was only to enable and facilitate the poor agriculturists to purchase the Tiller under the Scheme. The defendant approached the plaintiff's Manager on 18.02.2005 and persuaded him to issue such a receipt for purchase of Tiller to enable him to purchase the Power Tiller for Rs.90,000/-. This was to enable the purchaser to produce the said receipt before the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sagar, and to get the subsidy amount. The farmer had to pay the price of the tiller i.e., Rs.90,000/- as per the receipt, on receipt of subsidy amount. Accordingly, the Manager of the plaintiff bona fide believing the version of the defendant, issued a receipt of a sum of Rs.90,000/-, the price of the Tiller. The defendant had produced the said receipt before the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Sagar, and got issued a direction to the plaintiff to deliver the Tiller. Accordingly, the plaintiff delivered the said Tiller to the defendant. The defendant thereafter received the subsidy amount of Rs.45,000/- from the Government, but, failed to pay the Tiller price to plaintiff. In that regard, the plaintiff issued a letter to the defendant demanding the price of the Tiller, for which, the defendant got issued an untenable reply.