LEXICON AUTO LTD Vs. DIBEYENDU GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this revision is to the order dated 15.5.2007 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal, Kolkata allowing appeal against the order dated 15.2.2006 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 5,99,533 along with interest @ 10% per annum from 16.5.2003 and pay compensation of Rs. 50,000 for loss of income and mental agony, to the respondent.

(2.) Only few facts need be noticed for deciding this present revision. Respondent/complainant purchased a LP 1109/36 bus chassis from the petitioner/opposite party on 16.5.2003 by paying amount of Rs. 5,99,533 through a cheque and Rs. 290 in cash. Vehicle was registered as WB-71/9088. Respondent alleged that he later on learnt that the chassis supplied to him was of a truck. Therefore, on 2.4.2005 the respondent asked the petitioner to replace the chassis, but it refused to do so. Complaint seeking certain reliefs was thereupon filed by the respondent which was contested by filing written version by the petitioner/opposite party. It was alleged that initially quotation was given for LP 1109/36 bus chassis having the price of Rs. 5,84,725 on 10.9.2002. Subsequently, the respondent changed his mind and paid Rs. 5,99,533 by a bank draft dated 8.5.2003. Amount of Rs. 290 was also paid in cash on 16.5.2003 towards the difference in the price of bus chassis and truck chassis for which receipt was issued on 16.5.2003. The District Forum dismissed the complaint which order on appeal by the respondent was set aside by the State Commission in the manner noticed above.

(3.) It is admitted case of the parties that respondent was supplied LPT 1109/42 truck chassis by the petitioner. Respondent alleges that he paid the money for purchase of LP 1109/36 bus chassis. On the contrary, petitioner alleges that though the quotation was given for bus chassis but the respondent opted for truck chassis. In support of this stand Mr. Sandeep Narain for the petitioner has invited our attention to the price-list of trucks as on 1.4.2003 (copy at page 19), receipt dated 16.5.2003 evidencing payment of Rs. 290 in cash by the respondent (copy at page 20) and the writing dated 16.5.2003 (copy at page 21). Price list would show that the cost of LP 1109/36 bus chassis was Rs. 5,99,532.76 while that of LPT 1109/42 truck chassis was Rs. 5,99,823.49. Thus, the cost of truck chassis was more than the bus chassis by Rs. 290. It is not in dispute that respondent was sanctioned loan of Rs. 5,99,533 by Alipurduar Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank for purchase of a bus chassis and along with the covering letter (copy at page 18) the bank had forwarded demand draft in the name of petitioner for the said amount on 8.5.2003. To be noted that in the said receipt dated 16.5.2003 amount of Rs. 290 is shown to have been received from the respondent towards balance amount of LP 1109/36 bus chassis. Copy of Form No. 23 filed by the respondent before the District Forum would show that registration was granted by the Transport Authority, Siliguri to the respondent for a bus. It is not the case of any of the parties that the said bank was approached for change of make of chassis for which the loan was sanctioned. From the said documentary evidence it is clear that money was paid for purchase of a bus chassis instead of truck chassis to the petitioner. Though in para No. 10 of the affidavit filed by way of evidence the petitioner has given explanation in regard to wrong mentioning of LP 1109/36 instead of LPT 1109/42 in the said receipt dated 16.5.2003, but that explanation being an afterthought cannot be accepted nor any reliance can be placed on the writing dated 16.5.2003 the body whereof undisputedly is in the hand of a clerk of the petitioner-company. There is, thus, no illegality of jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is, therefore, dismissed with cost of Rs. 2,500 to the respondent. R.P. dismissed.