Skip to content


Budharu Ram Dhruva Vs. Sanjay Tiwari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Raipur
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. FA/2013 of 292
Judge
AppellantBudharu Ram Dhruva
RespondentSanjay Tiwari
Excerpt:
.....07.03.2013, passed by district consumer disputes redressal forum, mahasamund (c.g.) (henceforth "district forum") in complaint case no.17/2012. by the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant) has been dismissed. 2. briefly stated the facts of the case are : that the respondent (o.p.) offered for sale of tractor trolley (two wheelers) hydraulic to the appellant (complainant) but the appellant (complainant) expressed his inability to deposit full amount at once then the respondent (o.p.) fixed price of rs.1,30,000/- for the trolley and the facility was provided to the appellant (complainant) to deposit the same within a year in installments. the appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of rs.14,101/- as first installment on 16.02.2009 and obtained trolley from the.....
Judgment:

R.S. Sharma, President:

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 07.03.2013, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mahasamund (C.G.) (henceforth "District Forum") in Complaint Case No.17/2012. By the impugned order, the complaint of the appellant (complainant) has been dismissed.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are : that the respondent (O.P.) offered for sale of tractor trolley (two wheelers) Hydraulic to the appellant (complainant) but the appellant (complainant) expressed his inability to deposit full amount at once then the respondent (O.P.) fixed price of Rs.1,30,000/- for the trolley and the facility was provided to the appellant (complainant) to deposit the same within a year in installments. The appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.14,101/- as first installment on 16.02.2009 and obtained trolley from the respondent (O.P.). He was continuously deposited the installments with the respondent (O.P.) as mentioned in para 3 which is as under :-

DateAmount
16.02.200914,101.00
26.02.200925,000.00
03.03.200920,000.00
28.09.200955,000.00
01.01.201024,500.00
28.01.20104,850.00
01.01.201130,000.00
Total :1,93,451.00
 
The appellant (complainant) deposited a sum of Rs.1,93,451/- with the respondent (O.P.) in respect of the tractor trolley. In the month of December, 2009, the agent of the respondent (O.P.) forcibly took possession of the trolley. The appellant (complainant) contacted with the respondent (O.P.) but the respondent (O.P.) told him that the price of the trolley was increased upto Rs.23,000/- and he was asked for making payment of Rs.23,000/-. The appellant (complainant) deposited said amount with the respondent (O.P.) but the respondent (O.P.) did not return the trolley to him. The appellant (complainant) sent legal notice to the respondent (O.P.) on 30.03.2012. Thereafter the appellant (complainant) filed consumer complaint before the District Forum.

3. The respondent (O.P.) filed his written statement before the District Forum and denied the allegations made by the appellant (complainant) in the complaint against him. The respondent pleaded that the appellant (complainant) purchased Sonalika Tractor DI-2 at the cost of Rs.3,80,735/- on 16.02.2009 and also purchased trolley two wheeler Hydrolic at the cost of Rs.1,40,000/-, plough at the cost of Rs.19,500/-, cage wheel at the cost of Rs.9,500/- on credit. Being the appellant (complainant) is not possessing sufficient amount, therefore, Gramin Bank, Branch Patewa sanctioned loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in the name of Hiradhar Singh, who is relative of the appellant (complainant). The respondent (O.P.) gave a sum of Rs.1,000/- for search report on 24.06.2009 and Rs.250/- for adhesive stamp and Rs.2,200/- for DD charges on 26.06.2009 on behalf of the appellant (complainant). After sanction of loan, the respondent (O.P.) further paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- for registration and for insurance purpose and the Bank sent above amount to the respondent (O.P.) vide cheque No.063151 on 26.06.2009. The appellant (complainant) has to pay a sum of Rs.2,68,185/- for cost of tractor trolley, plough, cage wheel, insurance and registration. The complainant had also taken a sum of Rs.1,000/- on credit and a sum of Rs.6,000/- is also due as servicing charges. Thus, the appellant (complainant) has to pay a sum of Rs.2,75,185/- to the respondent (O.P.). The appellant (complainant) has filed a false and frivolous complaint before the District Forum, which is liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned District Forum, after having considered the material placed before it by the parties, dismissed the complaint.

5. Shri R.K. Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) argued that the order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.

6. None appeared for the respondent on 09.05.2014, when the case is fixed for final arguments.

7. We have heard arguments of Shri R.K.Bhawnani, learned counsel for the appellant (complainant) and have also perused the record of the District Forum.

8. In the instant case the appellant (complainant) could not file any document which indicates that the respondent (O.P.) took the trolley forcibly. The appellant (complainant) did not lodge any report against the respondent (O.P.). Had the vehicle was repossessed by the respondent (O.P.) forcibly the driver of the vehicle or the appellant (complainant) would have lodged a report before concerned Police Station and if the concerned Police Station, did not take any action then the appellant (complainant) would have filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police. The conduct of the appellant (complainant) is unnatural and it is not possible for the owner that if any person took forcible possession of the vehicle or robbed the vehicle, the appellant (complainant) will not lodge any report against the robber or muscleman and non filing such report by the appellant (complainant), it appears that that trolley was not repossessed by the respondent (O.P.). the appellant (complainant) has not been able to prove that when and in which date and in which place, the vehicle was repossessed by the respondent (O.P.) and at present vehicle is in their possession.

9. Learned District Forum has rightly observed in para 7 of the impugned order that on the basis of presumption, it cannot be inferred that the vehicle in question was forcibly repossessed by the respondent (O.P.). According to the appellant (complainant) he made complaint before the Police Station, Mahasamund and to different offices, but the appellant (complainant) could not file any report before the District Forum and the appellant (complainant) has not been able to prove that the trolley in question was in possession of the respondent (O.P.) and dismissed the complaint.

10. The impugned order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any jurisdiction error or illegality or irregularity, therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Commission.

11. Hence, the appeal of the appellant (complainant) being devoid of any merits, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to the cost of this appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //