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

          The complainant / respondent No.1 Kunwar Prasad Singh purchased a truck with trolley and hull from the petitioner and got the same financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.  The delivery of the trolley however was not given to him.  At the time of purchase, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- which was followed by payments of Rs.1,50,000/- on 11.10.2013, Rs. 22,000/- on 18.10.2013, Rs.1,45,000/- on 16.11.2013, Rs.85,000/- on 16.11.2013, thereby making a total sum of Rs.4,52,000/-.  According to the complainant, since delivery of the trolley had not been given to him, only a sum of Rs.1,83,000/- had remained payable by him.  This is also the case of the complainant / respondent No.1 that the petitioner, in connivance with the financer, made out a loan of Rs. 4,08,087/- to him under hire-purchase of the tractor and hull. He further alleged that after taking Rs.65,900/- from him on 10.6.2014, a sum of Rs.3,95,400/- was demanded from him.  Thus, according to the complainant he paid a total sum of Rs.5,17,900/-. The tractor was repossessed on 15.3.2015.  Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. 

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on the ground that only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- had been paid to it comprising payment of Rs.50,000/- at the time of purchase and Rs.1,50,000/- on 11.10.2013. The sale of the trolley along with tractor was denied.  The receipts of Rs.2,50,000/- alleged to have been issued by the petitioner were also denied in the reply filed by the petitioner before the District Forum.  It was alleged that the payment had been made by the son of the complainant to one Alok Gupta, who had issued forged receipts to the complainant.  It was also stated in the reply that the purchase was financed by Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., to the extent of Rs.3,94,000/-.

3.      Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. resisted the complaint, alleging therein that inclusive of the finance, they had paid Rs.4,08,087/- and out of that amount only Rs.65,900/- were paid by the complainant.  It was further alleged that since the complainant did not pay the remaining installments, the vehicle was repossessed in accordance with law.

4.      The District Forum directed the petitioner to return the amount of Rs.2,52,000/- to the complainant in addition to Rs.19,000/- towards accessories of the tractor thereby making a total sum of Rs.2,71,000/-.  A sum of Rs.5,000/- was awarded as compensation to the complainant, along with the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.3,000/-.

5.      Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal was modified to the extent that the petitioner was directed to pay only a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- as against the amount of Rs.2,71,000/- awarded by the District Forum.  Being still dissatisfied, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

6.      The payment of Rs.2,00,000/- having been admitted by the petitioner, the only dispute in this petition is as to whether further sum of Rs.2,52,000/- was received by the petitioner from the complainant  on different dates.  The complainant in support of the payments alleged to have been made by him filed photocopies of three receipts, bearing receipt No. 101 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs.22,000/-, receipt No. 102 dated 18.10.2013 for Rs.1,45,000/- and receipt No. 118 dated 16.11.2013 for Rs.85,000/-.  The aforesaid three receipt make an aggregate sum of Rs.2,52,000/-.  The State Commission noted in this regard that all the three receipts had been issued by the petitioner.  The complainant filed affidavits of the witnesses in whose presence the payment was made.  Though, the petitioner denied the aforesaid payments, no affidavits by way of evidence were filed by it to controvert the affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant.  It was also noted by the District Forum that no report of the theft of the receipts had been lodged by the petitioner nor had it reported the misuse of the said receipts by anyone. Thus, the finding of the District Forum with respect to the execution of the receipts C-3 to C-5 by the petitioner was confirmed by the State Commission.

7.      The finding of fact recorded by the fora below cannot be interfered by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction unless the same is shown to be perverse in the sense that no reasonable person acting on the material available to him could have returned the finding which the said fora returned in this case.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the failure of the petitioner to file any affidavit or other evidence to controvert the affidavit filed by the complainant, the concurrent finding of fact returned by the fora below with respect to the receipt of Rs. 2,52,000/- by the petitioner form the complainant cannot be said to be perverse and therefore does not call for interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.

8.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that since the petitioner received Rs.2,52,000/- from the complainant and did not give credit for the said amount to the complainant, the orders passed by the fora below does not call for any interference.  The revision petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.