RAM KRISHNA BHARTI Vs. RAMAN DISTRIBUTOR PVT.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 12.01.2015, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No. 151/2009, "Raman Distributor Private Limited Vs. Ram Krishna Bharti", vide which, while partly allowing the appeal, the order dated 30.12.2008, passed by the District Forum Chandauli in consumer complaint No. 60/2005, filed by the present petitioner, allowing the said complaint, was modified.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant Ram Krishna Bharti filed consumer complaint No. 60/2005 before the District Forum, saying that he approached the opposite party/OP-1/respondent No. 1 Raman Distributor Private Limited through OP-2/respondent No. 2 Mahender Uppadhyay, who was acting as an agent for OP-1, about the purchase of a Classic Cruiser vehicle. The price of the said vehicle was stated as Rs. 4,25,000.00 by the OP- The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1 lakh in cash on 210.2004 to OP-1 and the balance money, i.e., Rs. 3,25,000.00 was arranged as loan from the Kashi Grameen Bank. It is alleged in the consumer complaint that the OP-1 received money from the complainant for getting issued a permit for Maxi Cab from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO), Chandauli, but he did not get the said permit issued. It is also stated that the OP-1 delivered the vehicle on 17.02005, but in place of Classic Cruiser vehicle, the vehicle of another brand, i.e., Classic Toofan was given to him, whose price was less than the other model. The complainant also gave a sum of Rs. 23,000.00 to OP-2 on 17.02005 for getting the vehicle registered with the RTO, Chandauli with Maxicab permit. The OP-1 handed over the permit for private vehicle issued on 1.04.2005 by the RTO, Bhadohi. The complainant alleged in his complaint that the value of Classic Cruiser vehicle was Rs. 4,25,000.00 whereas that for Classic Toofan vehicle was Rs. 3,39,800.00. In this way, an excess amount of Rs. 85,200.00 had been charged by the OPs. Through the consumer complaint, the complainant demanded a sum of Rs. 3,35,200.00 as total compensation as per the following details:-

(3.) The District Forum vide their order dated 30.12.2008, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OPs to pay a sum of Rs. 3,32,232.00 along with interest @13% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint. The amount allowed by the District Forum included an excess amount of Rs. 85,200.00 charged by the OPs from the complainant as differential cost of two models and also a sum of Rs. 57,032.00 towards expenses in getting the vehicle challaned by the RTO on 3 occasions due to not getting the vehicle registered with Taxi permit. The District Forum also allowed a sum of Rs. 80,000.00 for loss of income to the complainant. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the OP-1 dealer challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which has been decided vide impugned order dated 31.12.2008. The State Commission modified the order of the District Forum, saying that the complainant was entitled for receiving the remaining amount of Rs. 19,417/- as differential cost of the vehicle, Rs. 10,000.00 as litigation expenses and Rs. 20,000.00 as compensation for mental agony. The District Forum ordered that a sum of Rs. 49,417/- should be paid to the complainant along with interest @9% p.a. with effect from 25.01.2005. Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.