1. This revision petition under sections 19 and 21 the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (in short, ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 583 of 2009 and 678/2009 dated 28.07.2014 arising out of order dated 12.07.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmednagar (in short, ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 172 of 2009. Appeal no. 583 of 2009 pertained to enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum and Appeal no. 678 of 2009 sought the setting aside of the impugned order. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are that he is a farmer owning irrigated agricultural land. He approached the respondent/dealers on 01.06.2007 to purchase a tractor of ‘Tafe’ make for which a quotation of Rs 4,75,000/- was provided by the respondent no. 1/dealer. An advance of Rs 1,25,000/- was paid against receipt towards the booking. However, neither the tractor was delivered as promised within 15 to 20 days nor the advance of Rs 1,25,000/- paid refunded. He therefore approached the District Forum in CC No. 172 of 2009 which was, on contest, allowed for refund of the advance paid along with interest at 10% p.a. from 22.04.2009, the date of filing the complaint with compensation of Rs 15,000/- for deficiency in service and Rs 5,000/- towards costs. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal (no. 583 of 2009) for enhancement of compensation. The respondents/dealers also filed an appeal ( no.678 of 2009) seeking to set aside the order of the District Forum. Both these appeals were disposed of by order dated 28.04.2014 whereby Appeal no. 583/2009 was dismissed and Appeal No. 678 of 2009 was allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the receipt for the advance paid was not genuine. The petitioner has challenged this order seeking setting aside of the order of the State Commission with enhancement of compensation. 3. The petitioner’s case is that the respondent/dealer had issued a receipt after receiving an advance of Rs 1,25,000/- towards the tractor for which a quotation of Rs 4,75,000/- had been provided by them as dealers. This receipt was obtained in order to obtain a loan from the bank. However, as the tractor was not supplied and personal efforts were in vain a legal notice was sent to the respondent. As there was no response to the notice, the District Forum was approached. Compensation is claimed for the expenses on hiring of tractor for agricultural operations and for legal costs. It is argued that the receipt has been acknowledged by the respondent/dealer although it is termed as a ‘nominal’ receipt. The petitioner contends that since the receipt is acknowledged by the respondent/dealer, there is a clear admission of the receipt of the advance by the respondent/dealer. Hence the findings of the State Commission are erroneous and the dismissal of his Appeal No. 583 of 2009 and allowing of Appeal no. 678 of 2009 are contested by way of this revision petition. 4. The respondent’s case, on the contrary, is that the receipt for Rs 1,25,000/- was only a ‘nominal’ receipt issued only to facilitate the processing of a loan for the petitioner by the bank towards the purchase of a ‘Tafe’ tractor for which he is a dealer. No money had been received by him from the petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the State Commission has correctly held that the order of the District Forum was erroneous and had set it aside. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner who appeared on authority from the counsel on record. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite a final opportunity to them to either appear or be represented by an authorized counsel. As none appeared on behalf of the respondents and no written submissions were also filed, they were placed ex parte in terms of the last order and the matter finally heard. 6. The impugned order of the State Commission has held that the petitioner had relied upon a receipt which did not mention a receipt number or the mode by which the amount of advance was paid i.e. cash/cheque or draft and the petitioner had remained quiet for 22 months after paying the advance. It has also held that the District Forum had made a “funny observation” that the petitioner may have done so out of his good relation with the respondent dealer. No reason has been provided in support of the finding that the petitioner remained quiet due to ‘good relations’ with the respondent. No evidence was cited to substantiate this conclusion. The petitioner’s claim that he had irrigated agricultural lands is concluded to be incorrect in view of there not being any document produced to this effect. The respondent has not taken this argument or urged any pleadings before the lower fora as per the order. The State Commission has noted that even the alleged advance stated to have been paid is not supported by by way of any entry by the dealer and that no details for incurring expenditure of Rs 70,000/- annually for agricultural operations had also been provided by the petitioner herein. However, the State Commission’s finding was that the receipt in question was only for the purpose of raising a loan from the bank and therefore the respondent/dealer cannot be held liable to refund the said amount of Rs 1,25,000/- or to pay compensation thereon. 7. The State Commission’s order places the onus on the petitioner to prove from the records of the respondent that the advance of Rs 1,25,000/- was paid to the respondent. The petitioner has relied upon the receipt issued by the respondent which has also been admitted by it, although as a ‘nominal’ receipt. In view of this admission, the State Commission’s conclusion that the receipt of Rs 1,25,000/- was not proved is not justified on the basis of any other document produced by the respondent. Such a conclusion is therefore based on conjecture and surmise and is liable to be set aside. 8. The State Commission, being the first Court of appeal is the final Court of fact. Against the order of the State Commission passed in first appeal, only a revision lies under section 21(b) of the Act. In revisional jurisdiction, this Commission can interfere only if there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction or if the order is illegal or perverse and ignores a material fact. Being a Court of fact, the State Commission is required to consider the contentions made by the parties and arrive at a decision by recording reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. Reasons recorded by the State Commission enable this Commission to effectively exercise revisional jurisdiction. An order that advances no cogent reason and classifies an order as ‘funny’ without ascribing any objective reasons for such a conclusion cannot be sustained. In this view of the matter also, the order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the State Commission’s order has not recorded the reasons for its conclusions. For this reason the review petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the case remanded to the State Commission with directions to decide it afresh in accordance with the law through a speaking order. 10. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3rd July 2023. |
