KULWANT SINGH Vs. NARINDER SEKHRI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the Complainant, is to the order, dated 23.04.2008 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 784 of 2006, preferred by the Opposite Parties in the complaint, being No. 1164/04. By the said impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the Appeal against order dated 19.04.2006, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (for short "the District Forum") and has affirmed the finding of the District Forum to the effect that the Respondents, Opposite Parties in the Complaint had deprived the Complainant of the user of his tractor. Observing that the Complainant had been deprived of the user of his tractor for a long time, from 13.08.2004 to 11.04.2008, the State Commission has modified the said order to the extent that Complainant shall be entitled to a compensation of 25,000/ - only, as against a compensation of 1,20,000/ - awarded by the District Forum. The State Commission has directed its Registry to release the amount deposited by the Respondents at the time of filing the Appeal to the Complainant, with interest, if any, in full and final settlement of his claim.

(2.) IT appears that on receipt of the said order, the Complainant filed a Miscellaneous Application, being MA No. 1086/2008, before the State Commission praying for review of the said order, inter -alia, on the ground that while deciding Appeal No. 784/2006, the State Commission did not take into consideration an earlier order, dated 10.07.2006, passed by the State Commission in Complainant's Appeal, being Appeal No. 872/2006. By the said order, (dated 10.07.2006), the Appeal had been dismissed in limine by the State Commission, holding that the compensation of 1,20,000/ - awarded by the District Forum with costs was sufficient and proper. The said application having been dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 25.11.2008, the correctness and legality of this order, is also questioned in this Revision Petition. In brief, the material facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are: that on being lured by Respondent No. 2, an Agent of the Respondent No. 1, Friends Tractors, sometime in early 2004, the Complainant purchased an Eicher Tractor 5660, after raising a loan of 3,40,000/ -. While doing so, the Complainant had handed over his old Tractor, valued at 50,000/ -, to Respondent No. 2, with the assurance that in addition to the adjustment of the said amount of 50,000/ - against the value of the new Tractor, a sum of 10,000/ -, incurred in arranging for the loan applied for by the Complainant and a further sum of 10,000/ - would be deposited by him towards installments of the said loan. However, in June 2004 the said Tractor developed some problems and became non -functional. Since the warranty period of the Tractor had not yet expired, the Complainant requested the Respondents to replace the said Tractor but of no avail. On 13.08.2004, in the absence of the Complainant, both the Respondents came to his house and took away the said Tractor, assuring his family members that they would provide a new Tractor to the Complainant.

(3.) ON consideration of the material on record, the District Forum observed that despite affording opportunities, the Respondents had failed to answer the allegations leveled against them in the Complaint. Rather, it was admitted by them that they would return the tractor but had failed to explain as to what prompted them to detain the tractor of the Complainant. Consequently, while holding that it was a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, the District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed the Respondents to return the Tractor of the Complainant in the same condition as it was taken in possession by them, besides paying 1,20,000/ - as compensation for unjustly and illegally keeping the tractor and in the process causing loss to the Complainant. It was also directed by the District Forum that if the Respondents were unable to return the said Tractor, they would refund the amount of 3,70,000/ - along with interest at the same rate as was being charged on the loan taken by the Complainant for purchase of the Tractor. A compensation of 10,000/ - and litigation costs, quantified at 1000/ -, were also directed to be paid to the Complainant. However, it was directed that in case the Tractor is returned in the same condition, then the Respondents would be liable to pay only a sum of 1,20,000/ - and costs of 1000/ -.