NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 960 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 12/11/2009 in Appeal No. 724/2009 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
1. M/S. SURANA MOTORSThrough its Accountant Shri Jai Prakash Trivedi, 7, B-Sector Kohe FizaBhopalMadhya Pradesh
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. SUNIL JAINResident of 70, Itwara RoadBhopalMadhya Pradesh
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
NEMO
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 19 May 2010
ORDER
Delay of 12 days in filing revision is condoned subject to just exceptions. In this revision by opposite party no.1, challenge is to the order dated 12.11.2009 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal partly allowing appeal against the order dated 17.2.2009 of a District Forum holding that the respondent/complainant is entitled to receive from the petitioner/opposite party no.1 amount of Rs.11,000/- with interest. The District Forum had allowed the complaint ordering the petitioner to pay amount of Rs.627/- with interest @ 8% p.a. from 10.8.2005 as cost of Rs.1000/-. Respondent purchased a motorcycle for Rs.58,680/- from the petitioner. He paid Rs.19,000/- in cash and Rs.11,000/- by cheque. Loan of Rs.28680/- was sanctioned by ICICI Bank Ltd. opposite party no.2 to the respondent and this loan amount was to be paid in monthly instalment of Rs.1399/- each. Respondent alleged that on enquiry it was revealed that instead of 28,660/- the loan of Rs.38,660/- had been sanctioned and loan amount had to be paid in EMI for 50 months instead of 24 months. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner, the respondent filed complaint seeking payment of Rs.10,000/- realised in excess etc. which was contested by the petitioner and Opposite Party no.2-Bank. To be only noted that the pleas taken by the Petitioner was that it had paid Rs.9192/- by cheque dated 8.8.2005 and Rs.1181/- by cheque dated 25.8.2005 to the respondent. Respondent admitted receipt of both the cheques. He, however, alleged that these amounts through cheques were received for some work done by him for the petitioner. However, disbelieving this explanation, the District Forum passed the order dated 17.2.2009. Contention advanced by Shri Bisaria, counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent has not adduced evidence that the two cheques for a total amount of Rs.10,373/- were received for some work done by him for the petitioner and the order under challenge is, therefore, erroneous. In para no.5 of the order the State Commission has stated that the total amount of both the cheques is Rs.10,373/- (Rs.9192/- + Rs.1181/-) and not Rs.11,000/- and fact strengthen the said explanation furnished by the Respondent. In our view, no fault can be found with this reasoning given by the State Commission. In support of the complaint, the respondent has filed his affidavit. We, thus, do not find any merit in the submission referred to above advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Revision is, therefore, dismissed being without any merit.
......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................JR.K. BATTAMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
