LAXMI AUTOMOBILES Vs. CHITTANOORI ESHWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the opposite party. Respondent/complainant alleged that on 9.10.2001 he purchased a tractor for Rs. 2,98,035 from the PETITIONER and as tractor was having some mechanical defects the same was returned to the petitioner on 20.2.2002 for repairs/service. PETITIONER instead of returning the tractor after repairs sold it to a third party. Thus, alleging deficiency in service, complaint was filed which was contested by the petitioner mainly on the plea that tractor was not purchased by the respondent on paying amount of Rs. 2,98,035 on 9.10.2001 nor was the tractor returned for repairs by the respondent to the petitioner. District Forum allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 2,98,035 with interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. 9.10.2001 Dissatisfied with District Forum's order the petitioner filed appeal which was disposed of by reducing the rate of interest from 12% to 9% while confirming rest of the District Forum's order.

(2.) CONTENTION advanced by Mrs. K. Radha for petitioner whom we have heard on admission, is that the defence taken by petitioner was not considered by either of the Fora below. Bare reading of order of District Forum would show that it had taken note of the defence raised by the petitioner and after considering the receipt, invoice, sale certificate, letters of the petitioner and other documents, passed the order for refund of aforesaid amount with interest. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the District Forum as affirmed by State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition, therefore, is dismissed. Revision Petitions dismissed.