ESCORTS FINANCE LIMITED Vs. NIRANJAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 24.2.2002 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra dismissing appeal against the order dated 21.11.2003 of a District Forum whereby petitioner/opposite party was directed to pay amount of Rs. 79,688 to the respondent complainant.

(2.) In short, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Respondent purchased a lorry bearing Registration No. AP 28 T 6461 on 11.6.1999 for Rs. 3,21,000 from the petitioner. This lorry was re-possessed by the petitioner from one Ahmad Khan because of non-payment of hire charges by him. Respondent alleged that petitioner handed over to him the National Permit, Fitness Certificate and Insurance Policy, etc. pertaining to the lorry and when on the strength thereof he made application to RTO, Hyderabad for obtaining 'No Objection Certificate' for transfer of lorry from Hyderabad to his area of operation, the RTO, Hyderabad told him to pay Rs. 79,688 on ground of Taxation Certificate and National Permit being bogus. Respondent further alleged that though he wrote letters to the petitioner to pay the said amount but there was no response. Respondent thereafter filed complaint seeking direction to the petitioner to pay the same amount. Though the authorised representative of petitioner appeared before the District Forum once but petitioner failed to file the written version and contest the complaint.

(3.) Submissions advanced by Mr. B.L. Wali, Advocate for petitioner was two fold : (i) respondent is not a consumer as the lorry was purchased for commercial purpose; and (ii) two documents which were found to be bogus by RTO, Hyderabad did not form part of the agreement executed between the parties (copy at page-10). During the course of agreement Mr. Wali filed the photo-copy of letter dated 1.3.2003 which was sent by the respondent to the petitioner. This is on the letter head of Ranminder Carriers, Bombay. Order of State Commission notices that petitioner did not deny of its authorised representative having appeared once before the District Forum and he having failed to file written versions and contest the complaint. In my view, in absence of pleading, the petitioner on the strength of said letter cannot be heard to urge that complaint was not maintainable for respondent having purchased the lorry for commercial purpose.