JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

          The case of the petitioner / complainant is that at the instance of respondent No.2 who is related to him, he purchased a tractor from respondent No.1 Jai Durga Tractors on 09.10.2013 for a price of Rs.5,40,000/- and paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- to respondent No.1 out of which Rs.25,000/- were withdrawn by him from his account in Punjab National Bank.  According to the complainant, when he used the tractor for agricultural purposes, it was found to be defective and the said defect could not be rectified.  He claims to have entered into an agreement with respondent No.1 on 09.10.2013.  This is also his case that on 22.10.2013, he took the tractor to the showroom of respondent No.1 where the keys of the tractor was deceitfully obtained from him and thereafter the tractor was either sold or it was hidden somewhere.  The petitioner / complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.

2.      The complaint was resisted by respondent No.1, which inter-alia alleged that the tractor was not purchased by the complainant but was taken by him for a day or two, promising to either purchase the same or return it within two days.  It was further alleged that the complainant neither returned the tractor nor did he pay its sale consideration.  It was also alleged that the complainant wanted to purchase the tractor for Rs.4,40,000/-, which offer respondent No.1 refused.  The tractor therefore, was retained by the respondent No.1.  Respondent No.2 also filed a reply, contesting the complaint and denied knowledge of any transaction between the complainant and respondent No.1.

3.      The District Forum delivered a split verdict, the President dismissing the complaint and the Members of the said Forum allowing the same.  In an appeal, preferred by the respondent No.1, the State Commission dismissed the complaint.  Being aggrieved, the petitioner / complainant is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.

4.      As noted earlier, the case of the petitioner / complainant as set out in the consumer complaint is that the price of the tractor was Rs.5,40,000/- and he had paid Rs.1,64,000/- to respondent No.1.  Admittedly, the petitioner / complainant does not have any invoice, evidencing the sale of the tractor to him by respondent No.1.  In the ordinary course of business, a tractor will be sold only against an invoice and not without execution of any document of sale.  During the course of hearing, I asked the learned counsel for the petitioner / complainant as to how the balance sale price was agreed to be paid by the complainant/ petitioner to respondent No.1.  The learned counsel submits that the said amount was to be paid by taking a loan to be arranged by respondent No.1.  However, I find no such averment in the complaint, which is conspicuously silent as to the manner in which balance sale price was to be paid by the petitioner / complainant to respondent No.1.  This is a clear indicator that the version of the transaction as given in the complaint was false.

5.      Though, the complainant / petitioner claims to have paid Rs.1,64,000/- to respondent No.1 in two installments, one of Rs.24,000/- and the other of Rs.1,40,000/-, there is no receipt either evidencing payment of Rs.24,000/- or payment of Rs.1,40,000/-.  There is no explanation as to why no receipt was obtained by the petitioner / complainant, while making two payments one of Rs.24,000/- and the other of Rs.1,40,000/- to respondent No.1.

6.      Coming to the agreement on which reliance is placed by respondent No.1, on a perusal of the said document, I find that nowhere it is signed on behalf of respondent No.1 Jai Durga Tractors.  Again, there is no explanation from the petitioner / complainant as to why he did not obtain signature of respondent No.1 on the aforesaid document.   This becomes important in the light of facts and petitioner / complainant does not have either any receipt evidencing any payment to respondent No.1 nor does he has any invoice evidencing the alleged sale of tractor by him.  In these circumstances, the complaint dos not appear to be correct and bonafide.  The view taken by the State Commission therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.  The revision petition being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.