H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA.

---

FIRST APPEAL NO.386/2008

DATE OF DECISION: 20.08.2009

In the matter of:



M/s Him Agro Corporation, Jawalaji Road, Near H.P. P.W.D. Rest House Nadaun, Post Office and Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P. through its Manager Arvind Kumar son of Sh. Karam Chand, permanent resident of VPO Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.

… … Appellant/Respondent.



Versus



1. Sh. Hoshiyar Singh son of late Sh. Ganga Ram, resident of VPO Sera, Mouza Kohla, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur, H.P.

… … Respondent/Complainant.

2. Sh. Davinder Singh Partner/Manager Doaba Auto Mobiles, 25, New Grain Market, Hoshiarpur – 146 001.

3. General Manager, Punjab Tractor Ltd. (Swaraj Tractor), S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Chandigarh.

… … Proforma Respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.



Whether approved for reporting? No



For the Appellant: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate, vice

Mr. Sandeep Kumar Chauhan, Advocate.



For the Respondents: Respondent No.1 in person.



None for respondent No.2 though

represented by Shri Ramakant Sharma,

Advocate.



Mr. Atul Jhingan, Advocate, vice

Mrs. Shilpa Sood, Advocate.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



O R D E R



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President (Oral).



1. This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Hamirpur, Camp at Nadaun, passed in Consumer Complaint No.121/2006, dated 10.11.2008. While allowing the complaint, it has been ordered as under:-



“9. The opposite party No.1 shall issue proper documents including sale certificate of Swaraj Tractor Model No.744, EE, Engine No.431008/M.O. 0/774 Chassis No.QWCM 45606005186 purchased by the complainant on 26.09.2004 on receiving the balance outstanding of Rs.29,000/-. There are no orders as to cost. The complaint stands disposed of. Certified copy of this order, be supplied to the parties, free of cost. The file after its due completion, be consigned to record room”.



2. In terms of the aforesaid order, bank draft No.866355 dated 19.8.2009 for Rs.29,000/- issued by State Bank of India, Sera Sab, favouring the appellant drawn on its Nadaun branch has been handed over by respondent No.1 to learned counsel for the appellant.



3. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction could not have been given to his client to issue the necessary documents for registration of the vehicle as the payment of Rs.29,000/- had been wrongly withheld by respondent No.1. Therefore, according to him, his client was entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.29,000/-. For allowing the same by modifying the impugned order, a serious plea was raised on behalf of the appellant.



4. So far respondent No.1, Hoshiar Singh Prashar is concerned, he submitted that at no point of time, he declined to make the payment of the amount that has been tendered today. However, for reasons best known to the appellant, it was not willing to accept the same. Due to such acts of remissness on the part of the appellant, he was deprived of getting the vehicle registered for want of necessary documents, and was forced to file complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted that claim of the appellant for interest has been rightly declined by the District Forum below because at no point of time, he refused to pay the amount provided the appellant was ready to deliver the necessary documents on the basis whereof he could get the vehicle registered as required under law.



5. From the material produced by the parties on the complaint file, we are prima facie satisfied that the appellant was guilty of having indulged into unfair trade practice by not accepting the sum of Rs.29,000/- that was offered to him by respondent No.1, as well as by not delivering the necessary documents so as to enable the said respondent to have got the vehicle registered in his name. That being the position and the balance amount having been paid today as directed by the District Forum below in the impugned order, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed subject to the direction that now the appellant shall deliver to respondent No.1 at his residence all necessary documents against receipt so that he is in a position to get the Tractor in question registered. These documents will be delivered on or before 31.8.2009 and in case needful is not done, appellant shall be liable to pay Rs.1,000/- per day thereafter till such time documents are delivered. Ordered accordingly.



6. No other point was urged.



Learned Counsel for the appellant and respondent No.3 have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary as per rules. Office is directed to send the same in the like manner to respondents 1 & 2 by post.

Shimla,

August 20, 2009.

( Justice Arun Kumar Goel ) (Retd.)

President



( Saroj Sharma )

Member



/BS/ ( Chander Shekhar Sharma )

Member