PROPRIETOR Vs. A.S.KONDAPPA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY virtue of this revision petition the opposite party No.1 before the District Forum, Proprietor M/s Vinay Enterprises, a dealer of Mahindra Tractors seeks to challenge the order dated 16.9.2008 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short the ˜State Commission) affirming the order dated 28.2.2008 of the District Forum who while partly allowing the complaint of the respondent complainant directed the petitioner dealer to pay a sum of Rs. 91,280 towards the refund of full consideration of the trailer and agricultural implements which were not supplied to the complainant despite having received their full cost. The District Forum further imposed a cost of Rs. 5,000 on the petitioner dealer.

(2.) FACTS of the case in brief are that for the purchase of a tractor with a trailer and agricultural implements, the respondent/ complainant paid a sum of Rs. 5,27,780 to the petitioner dealer. The cost of the trailer and agricultural implements was Rs. 1,45,000. It was alleged by the complainant that the petitioner dealer delivered him only the tractor and despite repeated request failed to give the trailer and implements but refunded a sum of Rs. 53,720 through a cheque and promised to refund the balance/remaining amount of Rs. 91,280 within a month. When repeated visits followed by a legal notice failed to evoke any response, he was forced to file a complaint before the District Forum. Petitioner dealer contested the complaint. His main contention in defense was that in addition to Rs. 53,720 which was paid by cheque another sum of Rs. 40,000 was paid to the complainant in cash towards the full and final refund and the complaint had been filed to blackmail him to derive wrongful gain. On appreciation of evidence and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the District Forum arrived at the conclusion that the alleged payment of Rs. 40,000 by cash did not stand substantiated and, therefore, directed the petitioner dealer to refund Rs. 91,280 with a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant.

(3.) AGGRIEVED there upon, the petitioner dealer had filed an appeal before the State Commission who, as stated earlier dismissed the appeal. Yet aggrieved upon the dismissal order of the State Commission that this revision petition has been filed by him.