SARWAN SINGH S/O UDHAM SINGH, R/O OF VILLAGE HALER,POST OFFICE, GHOGRA, TEHSIL DASUYA, DISTRICT : HOSHIARPUR PUNJAB Vs. HARMAN AUTOMOBILE DEALERS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HOSHIARPUR OPP FILLING STATION G.T ROAD, DASUYA, THROUGH PROP HARMANDEEP SINGH DISTRICT : HOSHIARPUR PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act') is to the order dated 13.03.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, (in short, 'the State Commission'), in First Appeal No.1518/2012. By the impugned order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal, preferred by the Opposite Party and set aside the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (in short, 'the District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.97/2012, thereby dismissing the Complaint.

(2.) The true facts material to the case are that the Complainant, a small farmer, bought two Sonalika Tractors 745 from the Opposite Party on 15.12.2006 and 25.04.2007 at the cost of Rs.3,60,000.00 each, with an understanding that the Opposite Party will provide Registration Certificate 'free of cost' and give free service for a period of one year. It was averred by the Complainant that on 30.09.2007, during assessment of the accounts, it was found that an excess payment of Rs. 1,10,000.00 has been made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. The Complainant approached SHO, Dasuya and Sonalika Manufacturers, Hoshiarpur to urge the Opposite Party to refund the excess payment and also to give the Registration Certificates of both the Tractors. Despite, repeated requests to furnish the photocopy of the Ledger, qua the payment, the Opposite Party was reluctant to do so. It was stated that the Complainant made payments on 17.06.2007 and 14.05.2008, but no receipts were given. Another Sonalika Tractor, Model No.2008 was purchased on 21.12.2007 for Rs. 4,53,000.00 in the name of Complainant's wife and once again the Complainant found that a sum of Rs. 2,50,000.00 was paid in excess, hence the Complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to the Opposite Party to refund the amount, along with interest and compensation.

(3.) The Opposite Party filed its Written Version denying that there was any excess amount paid to provide the Registration Certificate and to do service of the Tractors 'free', for a period of one year. There was no such practise in the year 2006-07. The Complainant was their regular customer and out of three Tractors, he had paid the full amount of only one Tractor and the requisite details and Form No.22 were given to the Complainant, qua the said Tractor, for which the amount was paid. The documents of the remaining two Tractors were not provided as the entire amount was not cleared by the Complainant. The denial of the receipt of excess payment of Rs. 1,10,000.00 by the Complainant, was made but stated that an amount of Rs. 2,00,000.00 is still due from the Complainant. It was further denied that the Complainant had made payments on 17.06.2007, 11.09.2007 and 14.05.2008 and further denied the receipt of any payment of Rs. 50,000.00 and also Rs. 2,00,000/- on 14.05.2008, but admitted having received payment of Rs. 10,000.00 on 02.06.2008.