PARVATI AUTOMOBILES Vs. DEODAO RAMA NAITAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT/complainant had booked a Hero Honda Splender Plus with the petitioner/opposite party and deposited Rs. 44,225 on 31.10.2003 being the price thereof with the petitioner/opposite party No. 1. On motor-bike not being supplied despite deposit of money the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner and opposite party No. 2 - manufacturer by filing separate written versions. It was alleged by the petitioner that amount of Rs. 44,225 was deposited not towards the booking amount of new motor bike but against the outstanding amount of Rs. 48,053 which was due on account of purchase of another vehicle in 1998 on hire purchase basis by the respondent. It was further alleged that the receipt dated 31.10.2003 was obtained fraudulently by the respondent. By the order dated 27.7.2004 the District Forum had allowed the complaint with direction to the petitioner to deliver a Hero Honda Splender Plus to respondent and pay interest @ 9% p.a. from 31.10.2003 on the deposited money till the delivery of actual possession. Amount of Rs. 2,000 as compensation towards mental agony was also awarded to the respondent. Dissatisfied with District Forum's order the petitioner filed appeal which was partly allowed by the State Commission by the order dated 5.6.2006. The State Commission deleted part of the order awarding compensation of Rs. 2,000. It further directed the respondent to pay amount of Rs. 2,430 along with interest @ 9% to the petitioner. It is this order which is being assailed by the petitioner.

(2.) SUBMISSION advanced by Mr. S.K. Sharma for petitioner is that an amount of Rs. 48,053 as on 31.10.2003 was due to the petitioner from the respondent towards the price etc. of the vehicle purchased in 1998 and the State Commission fell in error in passing order for payment of Rs. 2,430 only by the respondent. According to him, amount of Rs. 44,225 was paid to liquidate the outstanding amount by the respondent. It was pointed out that in view of Clause 5 of the operative portion of the District Forum's order having been set aside by the State Commission, the petitioner has been debarred from taking action against the respondent in regard to earlier transaction. In aforesaid receipt dated 31.10.2003 admittedly issued by the petitioner (copy at page 32) aforesaid amount of Rs. 44,225 is shown to have been received towards booking for a Splender Plus. Considering this receipt the District Forum had returned the finding which has not been disturbed by State Commission that the payment of Rs. 44,225 had nothing to do with the earlier transaction. Payment of this amount was towards booking of a new motor-bike. District Forum had rightly given liberty to the petitioner to take action in respect of earlier transaction against the respondent. Since respondent has not preferred a revision against part of the order of State Commission to pay back amount of Rs. 2,430 with interest pertaining to earlier transaction, the same is left undisturbed. Though there is no merit in this revision but it is made clear that it will be open to the petitioner to initiate action, if any, pertaining to earlier transaction in accordance with law against the respondent. Dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.