SANJAY SINGH Vs. BABY CHANDNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna in first appeal No. 124/2008 and 132/2008 whereby the State Commission dismissed appeal No. 124/2004 filed on behalf of the complainant and allowed the appeal of the opposite party dealer M/s. Baby Chandna Auto Centre No. 132/2008 resulting in dismissal of complaint on the ground of limitation.

(2.) SHORN off unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that Pramod Kumar Singh (since deceased) father of the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum alleging that on being approached by opposite party No. 2, Pramod Kumar Singh the late complainant purchased a tractor, cultivator and trailer from opposite party No. 1. For that he took loan of Rs. 2 Lakhs from opposite party No. 3 bank. It is the case of the complainant that for purchase of the tractor, cultivator and trailer the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/ - in all as consideration amount in various installments. Opposite party No. 1 despite of having received consideration for the tractor, cultivator and trailer, delivered the possession of the tractor and cultivator and did not deliver the trailer. It was also alleged in the complaint that opposite party No. 1 also failed to issue the sale letter, registration certificate and the insurance policy as a result of which the complainant could not use the tractor and cultivator resulting in loss to him. It may be noted that the complainant had alleged that against the consideration amount he paid Rs. 6,000/ - in cash without receipt in August, 2001, Rs. 80,000/ - was paid on 25.9.2001, Rs. 2 Lakh were directly paid by the bank as release of loan on 31.1.2002 and on the same day the complainant also delivered a bank draft of Rs. 1,29,000/ - to opposite party No. 1.

(3.) LEARNED District forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence was of the view that the complaint was filed within limitation. On merits, the District forum found the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service and ordered thus: - -