MARUTI SAKHARAM AUTI Vs. ADITYA MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Sec. 19 and 21 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, 'State Commission') in First Appeal Nos. 583 of 2009 and 678/2009 dtd. 28/7/2014 arising out of order dtd. 12/7/2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (in short, 'District Forum') in Consumer Complaint No. 172 of 2009. Appeal no. 583 of 2009 pertained to enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum and Appeal no. 678 of 2009 sought the setting aside of the impugned order.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that he is a farmer owning irrigated agricultural land. He approached the respondent/dealers on 1/6/2007 to purchase a tractor of 'Tafe' make for which a quotation of Rs.4,75,000.00 was provided by the respondent no. 1/dealer. An advance of Rs.1,25,000.00 was paid against receipt towards the booking. However, neither the tractor was delivered as promised within 15 to 20 days nor the advance of Rs.1,25,000.00 paid refunded. He therefore approached the District Forum in CC No. 172 of 2009 which was, on contest, allowed for refund of the advance paid along with interest at 10% p.a. from 22/4/2009, the date of filing the complaint with compensation of Rs.15,000.00 for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000.00 towards costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal (no. 583 of 2009) for enhancement of compensation. The respondents/dealers also filed an appeal ( no.678 of 2009) seeking to set aside the order of the District Forum. Both these appeals were disposed of by order dtd. 28/4/2014 whereby Appeal no. 583/2009 was dismissed and Appeal No. 678 of 2009 was allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the receipt for the advance paid was not genuine. The petitioner has challenged this order seeking setting aside of the order of the State Commission with enhancement of compensation.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the respondent/dealer had issued a receipt after receiving an advance of Rs.1,25,000.00 towards the tractor for which a quotation of Rs.4,75,000.00 had been provided by them as dealers. This receipt was obtained in order to obtain a loan from the bank. However, as the tractor was not supplied and personal efforts were in vain a legal notice was sent to the respondent. As there was no response to the notice, the District Forum was approached. Compensation is claimed for the expenses on hiring of tractor for agricultural operations and for legal costs. It is argued that the receipt has been acknowledged by the respondent/dealer although it is termed as a 'nominal' receipt. The petitioner contends that since the receipt is acknowledged by the respondent/dealer, there is a clear admission of the receipt of the advance by the respondent/dealer. Hence the findings of the State Commission are erroneous and the dismissal of his Appeal No. 583 of 2009 and allowing of Appeal no. 678 of 2009 are contested by way of this revision petition.