Delay of 4 days in filing the revision petition is condoned.       

As per averments made in the complaint, respondents/complainants for purchasing a Toyota Qualis Euro-I – C1 had deposited a sum of Rs.99,000/- in cash with the petitioner on 12.11.2001 and paid further sum of Rs.5,47,600/- on 24.11.2001.  The vehicle was delivered to the complainants on 26.11.2001.  After a period of one year, the complainants came to know that a fraud had been played with them and they were delivered the vehicle having

-2-

low price and they were not provided the desired vehicle.  Legal notice was sent to the petitioner on 09.06.2003 which was not replied by the petitioner.  Respondents filed the complaint with the allegation that the petitioner had charged a sum of Rs.74,000/- in excess from them. 

Petitioner entered appearance and took the stand that the respondents had never paid the sum of Rs.99,000/- to them; that agreed vehicle was delivered to the complainants and in fact a sum of Rs.12,500/- was still outstanding against them.                       

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the complainants alongwith interest          @ 18% p.a. from 26.11.2001.  Rs.5000/- were awarded as costs.

          Petitioner being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which partly allowed the same and reduced the rate of interest to 7% p.a.  Rest of the order of the District Forum was upheld.

          Finding recorded by the fora below that the respondents had paid the sum of Rs.99,000/-  to the petitioner is a finding of fact based on evidence.  The same cannot be interfered with in exercise of

-3-

revisional jurisdiction.   Under Section 21 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Commission can interfere with the order of the fora below only if there is an error in the exercise or illegality in the jurisdiction.  We do not find any such error or illegality in the impugned order.

          Counsel for the petitioner, then, contends that the complaint filed by the respondents was beyond the period of two years and thus liable to be dismissed as barred by time.  Petitioner had raised the point regarding limitation in the Written Statement but neither an issue was framed nor was it decided by the District Forum.  The State Commission has also not decided this point.  Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts.  Perhaps petitioner did not press this point before the fora below.   Since this point was not pressed by the fora below the petitioner cannot be allowed to argue this point at this stage.   Dismissed.