B C NAGAPPA Vs. K KESAVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard party in person. Complainant is the appellant. He filed the complaint stating that he has purchased one Moped from the respondent and it was found to be defective and therefore, the respondent should replace the Moped with another moped. Towards consideration of the Moped he executed a promissory note in favour of the respondent for Rs.5,500/-. Subsequently that moped was also found to be defective and the respondent did not supply the spares required and therefore, elders were called. According to the complainant elders settled the matter on the following terms and conditions. (i) that the complainant need not pay further instalment amounts, (ii) that the complainant will retain the vehicle, and (iii) the respondent shall return the promissory note executed by the complainant.

(2.) In this appeal the appellant grievance is that as settled by elders, the respondent has not returned the promissory note and, therefore, action may be taken against the respondent under the provisions of this Act.

(3.) The District Forum held that the respondent had already filed a suit S. C. No.142/90 on the file of the Sub Court, Anantapur on the basis of the promissory note, for recovery of the amount and the same is pending and the recital in the promissory note is 'cash consideration'. Since the suit is pending on the basis of the promissory note and the matter is sub-judice the District Forum dismissed the complaint.