(Delivered on 06/05/2022)

PER SHRI A. Z. KHWAJA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL  MEMBER.`

1.         Appellant Mr. Suresh  Shriram Gedam has preferred the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 17/07/2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara in Consumer Complaint No. 23/2013, by which the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant came to be dismissed. (Appellant shall hereinafter be referred as  complainant and respondents as O.Ps. for the sake of convenience)

2.         Short facts leading to filing of the present appeal may be narrated as under,

            Complainant – Mr. Suresh Gedam, claims to be  an educated unemployment  person and for sake of  earning  his livelihood  had made  an application  to  Mahatma Fule Magas Vargiya Mahamandal for loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchasing  tractor  and trolley . The application for grant of loan  of Rs. 5,00,000/- was sanctioned  on 17/07/2010 by Mahatma Fule Magas Vargiya Mahamandal and cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also handed over  to the Dealer  namely  M/s. Ramdeobaba Motors. Complainant was informed  that  within  three weeks  he will get new tractor  and trolley. The complainant was waiting for the same but he  never  get  delivery of the tractor and trolley despite  repeated  request. The complainant has alleged that  since he did not get delivery of the tractor  and trolley and his business and  livelihood  were depending  upon the same he  compelled  to take another tractor and trolley on hire  but even  thereafter  the O.P. as well as its District Registrar  did not  give the delivery  of the  new  tractor and trolley  and thereby caused  mental and physical  harassment  to the complainant.  The complainant  has therefore alleged that  there was deficiency  in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 as well as O.P. No. 3- Dealer and  Proprietor  of M/s. Ramdeobaba Motors  and so he lodged  the present  consumer  complaint.

3.         The O.P. No. 1 has denied  all the contentions and  has contended that  not only  the loan was  sanctioned  of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant  but cheque  was also handed over  on 30/08/2010 to  O.P. No. 3- M/s. Ramdeobaba Motors  and copy of the receipt of the same  was also supplied  to the complainant. The complainant has lodged the false complaint against the  O.P.No. 1/respondent No. 1 and so the same deserves to be dismissed.

4.         The O.P. No. 2 has also denied the contents made in the complaint. The O.P. No. 3 was served with notice but failed to appear and so complaint preceded exparte against the O.P. No. 3.

5.         The learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara thereafter went through  the documentary  evidence adduced  by the complainant  as well as O.P. Nos. 1&2. The learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara thereafter came to the conclusion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 and so complaint filed by the complainant came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 17/07/2015.  Against this judgment and order dated 17/07/2015 the present  appellant/complainant   has come up in appeal.

6.         We have heard Mr. Pravin Dahate learned advocate for the appellant/complainant and  Mr. Chavan,learned advocate for the respondent No. 1, Mr. T.T. Jadhao then District Registrar, Mahatma Fule Magas Vargiya Mahamandal.

7.         At the outset it is submitted by  the learned advocate for the appellant that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara has not appreciated  the documents   in proper perspective  and  therefore  has reached   findings  which were  erroneous  in nature. On the other hand the learned advocate for the respondent No. 1 has supported the judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara. The respondent No. 1 has also filed  written notes of argument  and has taken  plea that  he has been  falsely  implicated  personally  by the appellant /complainant  without any reason  and only  because  the  respondent No. 1 -T.T. Jadhao had lodged  a complaint  against the complainant – Mr. Suresh Gedam in Bhandara Police Station. It is not necessary for us  to go to this  aspect  and  appeal  has to be confined  to the ground  made out in the appeal  as well as  contentions advanced.

8.         Initially the learned  advocate for the appellant /complainant  has submitted before us that  despite  the fact that  his application for grant of loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- had come to sanctioned  yet the respondent  No. 1 and respondent No. 3 colluded  together and did not  hand over the tractor and trolley to him  nor the cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- was handed over to him but this  fact was not  appreciated  by the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara. It is submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant/ complainant  that  he was compelled  to hire a  tractor  for  earning his livelihood  despite the fact that his loan had come to be sanctioned. In this regard the learned advocate for the appellant /complainant has also drawn our attention to the various documents filed on record by the appellant / complainant before the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara and we have perused the same. The complainant  has placed on record one copy of  application  for  grant  of loan  of Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchase  of tractor  and copy of the same  is also on record and same is dated 10/12/2009. The complainant  has also filed  on record one copy of  letter  dated 30/08/2010 issued by the  respondent No. 1- T.T. Jadhao , District Registrar  to respondent No. 3 – M/s. Ramdeobaba Motors., It clearly  shows that  the cheques  for amount of Rs. 4,01,700/-, Rs. 88,300, and Rs. 10,000/- came to be issued on 07/07/2010 and same  were  also delivered  to the respondent No. 3- Dealer M/s. Ramdeobaba Motors. Bare perusal  of this letter dated 30/08/2010 goes to point out that the complainant  himself  had acknowledged  the receipt  of these three cheques  issued by the respondent  No. 1- T.T. Jadhao, Distrit Registrar. So far as contention  of the  appellant/ complainant – Mr. Suresh Gedam that he had never received  the delivery of the tractor  is concerned, the O.P. No. 1 has categorically  stated that  the tractor  was not only  delivered  to the complainant /appellant – Mr. Suresh Gedam but present  Appellant /complainant – Mr. Suresh Gedam had also given  an acknowledgement  by addressing a letter  to the respondent No. 1 on 31/01/2011 in his own hand writing . We have gone through this letter dated 31/01/2011. In this letter  the appellant /complainant  has clearly  admitted that  he had received the cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- and thereafter  on 08/01/2011 he had also received  the delivery  of the tractor bearing  registration No. MH-40/2752.  Further he also agreed to hand over the R.C. Book as well as keys and he had no grievance of  delivery of the  tractor. On this aspect the learned  advocate for the  appellant/ complainant  has vehemently  argued  before  us that the document namely  letter dated 31/01/2011 which is present  in  the record of the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara is bogus and fraudulent and no such  acknowledgment has been given  by the complainant.  In view of the submissions  made by the learned advocate for the appellant  we have called for the original record  from the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara and also perused  the documents in the light of the submissions  made  and also  perused  the letter dated 31/01/2011 which  was  in the nature of acknowledgement. If really  the said letter dated 31/01/2011  was in  suspicious  in nature  it was  open to the complainant  to get  said letter  examine by hand writing  expert but no steps  were  taken by the  complainant  before the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara nor any other evidence is led  by the complainant  to counter this document.  As such contention of the learned advocate for the appellant regarding this letter dated 31/01/2011 being bogus is not tenable in law in the absence of any material on record.

9.         During the course of arguments our attention was also drawn  to one letter addressed by Divisional Controller to complainant – Mr. Suresh Gedam. On this letter complainant has himself given an endorsement that he would take delivery  of the tractor as per quotation  and  hand over the R.C. Book to the complainant . There is no reason or material   to doubt these letters which  are placed  on record. On the contrary the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara has elaborately dealt with this aspect  and has given  findings  that since  the tractor  bearing No. MH-40/2752 was delivered to the complainant / appellant and acknowledgment was also received from the complainant /appellant, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3. As such the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant /complainant that he never received the delivery of the tractor or that the documents were not properly appreciated by the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara cannot be accepted at all.  On the other hand, we find that  the respondent No. 1 has contended that  the letter  was issued  by the  District Manager, Mahatma Fule Magas Vargiya Mahamandal to lodge the complaint in Police Station, Bhandara against  the appellant and respondent No. 3 but we  do not wish to go to this aspect in the present appeal as same  is not warranted   or called  for. It is sufficient  to  mention  that  the learned District Consumer Commission, Bhandara has elaborately dealt with the documents  filed on record and has also  given  reasons for coming to the conclusion  that there was no deficiency  in  service on the part of the  O.P. Nos. 1 to 3/ respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and we do not  find any reason  to interfere  with the said findings. In the light of the aforesaid discussion we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the learned advocate for the appellant and so we hold that the appeal is devoid of any substance and so we pass the following order.

ORDER

 i.         Appeal is hereby dismissed. .

ii.          Appellant to bear his own costs as well as costs of the respondents.

iii.         Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.