MUKHTAR AALAM Vs. CHET RAM ROTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 4.4.2013 passed by the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 185 of 2012 Mukhtar Alam Vs. Chet Ram Rotha by which, while allowing appeal partly, order of District Forum allowing complaint was modified.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent sent five consignments of apple to OP/appellant for sale on commission basis in the year 2008. After sale, OP sent invoices after deducting expenses and commission and Rs.6,13,081/ - was payable to the complainant, but OP has not paid any amount. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant had taken advance of Rs.2,50,000/ - from OP, but has not sent even a single box of apple during the apple season of 2008. It was further submitted that disputed questions were involved; hence, District Forum had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.6,13,081/ - with 9% p.a. interest and further awarded Rs.25,000/ - as compensation for harassment and Rs.5,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was partly allowed by learned State Commission vide impugned order and directed OP to pay Rs.3,63,081/ - instead of Rs.6,13,081/ - against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.