STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 289 of 2015

Ramdeo Mahto, Son of Sri Lakhan Mahto, Resident of Sarai, PO- Bhagalpur City, PS- Tatapur, Bhagalpur

                                                                                                                                                        … Appellant

Versus

Manager, Mihir Trade & Agency, C/o- Aliganj, Bhagalpur, Dumka Road, Bhagalpur, PO- Khiribandh, Mirjan, Bhagalpur

                                                                                                                                                     …. Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: None

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 23.02.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed by appellant /complainant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 01.09.2015 passed by District Consumer Forum, Bhagalpur in Consumer Complainant case no. 205 of 2013 whereby and whereunder the Ld. Forum has dismissed the complaint case.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case  as disclosed in complaint petition is that complainant had purchased a Hero Passion Pro self motorcycle bearing Registration no. BR-10R-1202 on 07.09.2012 for which he paid Rs. 56,445/- to the agency of the motorcycle Company but money receipt of Rs. 50,718/- was only provided which included Rs. 1,566/- as insurance amount and Rs. 1,700/- as accessories but no pakka receipt with respect to Rs. 5,727/- was provided and on demand complainant was orally informed and thereafter employee of the agency gave the details by a hand written note but pakka receipt was not provided by the agency and aggrieved by which he filed Consumer Complaint case to take appropriate action against the Mihir Trade Agency (Opposite party).
3. Notices were issued to opposite party on 06.12.2014 but they did not appear within prescribed time and case was ordered to be heard ex-parte. Opposite party appeared and filed a petition dated 18.06.2015 for recall of ex-parte order but same was dismissed on 19.08.2015. They also filed written statement on 31.08.2015 but same was not accepted.
4. The District Consumer Forum in the order as impugned has observed that complainant sent his complaint petition dated 13.12.2013 through post which was received in the Forum on 18.12.2013 and after registration of the complaint, complainant submitted Vakalatnama and affidavit on 22.01.2014 but affidavit was not affirmed before any executive magistrate or oath commissioner as such same was defective. One application dated 21.01.2014 filed by complainant is on record but same is contrary to complaint petition dated 13.12.2013.
5. Complainant by post send application  dated 13.06.2015 & 18.06.2015 duly affirmed but no amendment petition was filed as such they can not be treated to be part of complaint petition.
6.  Complainant was given last opportunity of hearing on 31.08.2015 but he did not appear and as such the Ld. District Consumer Forum passed the order on the basis of material available on record.
7. The District Consumer Forum after considering the materials available on record held that contents of complaint petition dated 13.12.2013, 21.01.2014 & 13.06.2015 are contrary to each other. Complaint petition dated 13.12.2013 is vague and no specific relief or claim has been prayed. No petition for amendment of complaint petition was filed as such the complaint case is not maintainable before Consumer Forum. Complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of documents nor has adduced any cogent evidence either oral or documentary and has misconstrued and misinterpreted the provisions of Consumer Act. Rs. 20/- non-judicial stamp filed is also not as per prescribed procedure.
8. After discussing the entire facts the Consumer Forum held that they  have no option but to dismiss the complaint case. Aggrieved by order dismissing the complaint case, complainant has preferred this appeal on following grounds:

1. For that the order passed under appeal is bad in law and facts both and is fit to be dismissed.
2. For that the Learned District Consumer Forum, Bhagalpur failed to appreciate the documentary evidence i.e money receipt, service card members copy, written invoice dated 07.09.2012, slip, registration certificate submitted by complainant in support of his complaint.
3. For that the Learned District Forum passed the impugned order without considering and discussing the application dated 13.06.2015, 19.07.2015, 04.07.2016 and 14.06.2015 of the complainant while passing the order.
4. For that the Learned District Forum failed to appreciate the principle settled by the constitutional court and Hon’ble Commission while passing the order and also not interpreted the application dated 13.12.2013 and 21.01.2014 of the complainant in true sense.
5. For that the order under appeal has been passed without complying the mandatory provision of the consumer protection act without complying the principle of natural justice and without giving sufficient opportunity to explain the discharge slip.
6. For that in view of the facts and circumstances submitted above the learned forum has committed illegality in dismissing the complaint.

9.  Nothing new has been stated in memo of appeal and facts and argument as made before the District Consumer Forum, has been reiterated in this appeal.
10.  Appellants main grievance is with respect to non furnishing of Pakka bill with respect to purchase of items worth Rs. 5727/- and only Kachha bill has been furnished.
11.  Appellant had purchased a Hero Passion motorcycle as detailed above for which he paid Rs. 56,445/- to the agency but Pakka bill of Rs. 50,718/- was only given to him which included price of motorcycle Rs. 49,152/- cost of insurance Rs. 1,566/- which comes to Rs. 50,718/- and no pakka bill was given with respect to remaining amount of Rs. 5,727/-. However, from record it appears that money receipt with respect to Rs. 1,700/- of accessories and Rs. 450/-  of Rahul Enterprises are part of records and expenditure made with respect to remaining amount has been given to complainant in hand written note which is also enclosed and purchase of which were optional.
12. From the letter of complainant as enclosed it appears that on complaint made by complainant with respect to leg guard same was replaced by the opposite party as well as Rs. 175/- which was received for HSRP was refunded to the complainant on his demand.
13.  In such view of the matter this court is not inclined to interfere in the order dated 01.09.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Bhagalpur in Consumer Complaint case no. 205 of 2013.
14.  The appeal is accordingly, disposed of.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                           (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                             President

Md. Fariduzzama