M/S. FAUZDAR MOTORS AUTHORISED DEALER TELCO PASSENGER, CAR DIVISION, PANNA NAKA, SATNA MADHYA PRADESH Vs. M.L. SEN AND ANOTHER S/O. SHRI NATTHURAM SEN, BEEDA COLONY, DHEKHA, REWA TEHSIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Aggrieved by the order dated 07.01.2016, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short the State Commission ) in First Appeal No.259 of 2010, M/s Fauzdar Motors, an authorised dealer for sale of the cars manufactured by Tata Motors, has filed this Revision Petition, under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act ). By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the order, dated 18.12.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewa (for short the District Forum ) in CC No.374 of 2008. By the said order, the District Forum, while allowing the Complaint filed by the Complainant, Respondent no.1 herein, alleging unfair trade practise and deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner, in selling an old Tata Indica car to the Complainant as a new vehicle, the District Forum had directed the Petitioner to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him on account of the alleged cheating by the Petitioner, with the default stipulation of payment of interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on the said amount, if the same is not paid within 30 days of the date of the said order.

(2.) As noted above, the short controversy before the lower Fora was whether the Petitioner had sold an old vehicle to the Complainant as a new one for a sale consideration of Rs.4,25,300.00. In support of his case, the Complainant had brought on record a challan showing sale of the same vehicle to another customer, namely Smt. Meena Kwatra on 07.03.2008, who had also obtained an insurance policy in respect of the same very vehicle on 07.03.2008 after paying the requisite premium amount. For arriving at the conclusion that the afore-stated allegation of the Complainant stood proved, both the Fora below have relied upon the said documentary evidence. Both the Forums have rejected the stand of the Petitioner that the said customer had obtained the Insurance cover for a period of one month as she wanted to take out the car for test drive, after paying a sum of Rs.40,000.00 as part payment for the vehicle.

(3.) The said finding, being based on cogent evidence, and not challenged as being perverse on any ground, whatsoever, we do not find any Jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting our interference in the Revisional Jurisdiction. Additionally, the present Revision Petition is also barred by limitation inasmuch as there is a delay of 41 days in filing the same, for which no satisfactory explanation has been furnished.