STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 211 of 2017

Bhanu Kumar, Son of Yogendra Singh, Resident of – Hasanpur, PO- Mahisona, PS and District- Lakhisarai

                                                                                                                                                         … Appellant

Versus

1. Shiv Kumari (Wife) of Rajesh Kumar

2. Shivani, Minor (Daughter)

3. Pritesh Kumar, (Son), All residing at Village- Rampur, P.S- Surajgarha, District- Lakhisarai

                                                                                                                                 …. Opposite Party/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Praveen Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. Anil Kumar

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 25.05.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed by complainant /appellant for setting aside order dated 22.06.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Lakhisarai in Complaint Case no. 27 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has dismissed the complaint case.
2. Briefly stated the case of complainant is that he had entered into an agreement with original opposite party for purchase of Commercial Tractor Model 9500 at the price of Rs. 8,25,000/-. On completing all the necessary formalities for sale, complainant paid the agreed amount to the original O.P but instead of supplying commercial tractor original O.P. supplied agricultural tractor contrary to the terms of agreement entered between the parties.
3. It is further stated by the complainant that he approached the original O.P  and requested him to exchange the purchased tractor from commercial tractor. It was further stated that when mistake was realized by original O.P he assured the complainant vide letter dated 16.02.2015 that the desired tractor will be made available within 10-15 days.
4. It is further stated that in order to redress the grievances of complainant original O.P send a letter dated 16.11.2015 to the District Transport Office, Lakhisarai requesting him to cancel the registration of purchased tractor. On 16.12.2016 original O.P send a letter to the area Manager of the Tafe Ltd, Patna requesting him to provide consent to the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai to cancel the registration of the purchased vehicle.
5. It is further stated that all of a sudden original O.P. refused to exchange the purchased tractor with commercial tractor as assured and in terms of the agreement entered between the parties.
6. Complainant thereafter served legal notice to the original O.P  but when no step was taken by original O.P, complainant filed complaint case no. 27 of 2016 before the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Lakhisarai for redressal of his grievances.
7. On notice original O.P. appeared and filed his written statement stating therein that  in terms of quotation, tractor was supplied to complainant and there was no agreement entered between the parties for supply of any another Model of tractor. Quotation on 13.09.2015 for Tractor MF9500 DIDC price Rs. 8,25,000/- was provided by the original O.P to the complainant bearing signature of both the parties and thereafter the tractor was delivered on 17.09.2015. Rs. 4,00,000/- was paid by the complainant to the original O.P. and Rs. 4,80,000/- was financed by Magma Financial Corporation Ltd. Complainant has repaid Rs. 31,501/- as two installments to the finance company. 
8. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering and appreciating the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the parties has held that quotation of the tractor, delivery challan, retail invoice, sale certificate, insurance paper along with NOC of the complainant makes it abundant clear that tractor was delivered as per quotation.
9. It has further been held that signature of complainant on documents like, quotation, delivery challan, retail invoice indicates that complainant intended to purchase the tractor model MF-9500 DIDC and same has been delivered to the complainant and on being satisfied with the make and model of tractor he received the tractor and deposited the consideration money and got the purchased tractor registered and insured in his name and also got trolley and other equipements fitted in workshop and as such allegation of any breach of terms of agreement is baseless.
10. The District Consumer Forum has further held that there is nothing on record to show that any agreement was entered into or assurance was given by the original opposite party to exchange the tractor model no. 738 with model no. 739.
11. The District Consumer Forum has doubted the truthfulness of allegation as complainant submitted a so called undertaking dated 16.02.2015 of original opposite party in which opposite party had given undertaking to exchange the tractor whereas, tractor was purchased in September, 2015 and undertaking is of 16.02.2015 as such it is a forged document.
12. The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint case filed by complainant by order dated 22.06.2017 against which present appeal has been filed by the complainant.
13. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that the District Consumer Forum has not properly appreciated the documentary evidences submitted on behalf of appellant. The District Consumer Forum failed to consider that opposite party subsequently  realized his mistake and assured appellant vide letter dated 16.02.2015 that he will make available the required tractor within 10-15 days. District Consumer Forum failed to consider effect of letter dated 16.11.2015 addressed to the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai of original O.P requesting him to cancel registration of the purchased tractor and further letter dated 16.12.2016 of original opposite party send to the Area Manager of Tafe Ltd, Patna to provide consent to the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai for cancellation of registration of the purchased tractor.
14. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the judgment and order under appeal as well as materials available on record. No fresh ground has been argued in this appeal and all the grounds taken before the District consumer Forum has been reiterated in this appeal. All questions of fact and law which were raised before the District Consumer Forum have been raised in this appeal.
15. This Commission finds that the District Consumer Forum has duly considered and properly appreciated all the evidences led by the parties and has arrived on a finding which is based upon meticulous and in-depth appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary and findings are neither perverse nor based upon any mis-appreciation or non-appreciation of evidence on record and as such does not require reconsideration and re-appreciation of evidences by this Commission.
16. During pendency of appeal the original opposite party died and he was substituted by his legal heirs. Complainant can not take advantage of letters and documents written by deceased /opposite party to favour and help complainant and no right is created in favour of complainant on basis of these documents even assuming documents to be true, although, the District Consumer Forum has expressed its serious reservation about the authenticity and geunuinity of these documents.
17. The District Consumer Forum has conclusively held that there is no evidence from which it can be inferred that original opposite party had entered into any agreement or had given any assurance to exchange the purchased tractor with another tractor. Moreover, complainant took delivery of the tractor with open eyes  and after his due satisfaction and thereafter, got it registered in D.T.O office and also insured the tractor in his name and took his tractor to workshop for fitting of trolley and other equipments and having done so can not raise a plea that he was not supplied the tractor as per his choice. All the documents of purchase indicate that the tractor which was purchased by the complainant was as per his choice.
18. There is no error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Lakhisarai and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

       (Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                          (Sanjay Kumar,J)

               Member                                                                                                                            President

Md. Fariduzzama