KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is a Revision Application u/s 47(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, preferred against the Order dated 18/07/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, in CC/6/2023.

The Revisionist’s case in brief is that, the OP/Complainant had a filed a case before the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, on the ground, that he had gone with an intention to purchase a new e-rickshaw, being model ELE-100MS, whose ex-showroom price was Rs.1,22,500/- (Rupees one lakh twenty-two thousand five hundred) only, with Rs.15000/-  (Rupees fifteen thousand) only Registration charges totaling to Rs.1,37,500/- (Rupees one lakh thirty-seven thousand five hundred) only, with discount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and scrap amount of Rs.13000/- (Rupees thirteen thousand) only, making the price of the said vehicle at Rs.1,19,500/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand five hundred) only, with advance of Rs.34,500/- (Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred) only,  with finance from OP no.4, after the delivery of the vehicle on payment of only Rs.34500/- (Rupees thirty four thousand five hundred) only, with the remaining Rs.85000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand) only, to be paid by the Revisionist. Thereafter on 16/04/2021, the OP/Complainant received the Invoice Bill and in spite of being assured of financial support, the other OPs had failed to respond. During the pendency of the case, the Revisionist had preferred an application, for expunging its name from the case.

After hearing both the sides, the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, vide the impugned order rejected the petition.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Revisionist preferred this instant revision, on the ground that the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, had erred in law and facts, while passing the impugned order.

                                                                         Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Revisionist, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that the OP/Complainant had falsely implicated him in this case, as there was no evidence for such implication. It was further argued that the OP/Complainant had made payments to OP no.2 and the Revisionist was not involved at all. It was again argued that the documents relied by the OP/Complainant did not belong to the Revisionist. He therefore prayed that the impugned order, be set aside.

From the written argument filed it becomes clear that the OP/Complainant has relied on the impugned judgement and there being no anomalies in the said order therefore, should be upheld.

From the complaint lying in the record, it transpires that inter alia there is a prayer in point no.2, for a direction upon the OPs for taking necessary measures from their end for providing to the Complainant, the registration of the vehicle purchased by the OP/Complainant. At this preliminary stage, when the trial is yet to start it would be difficult to assess the involvement of the Revisionist in the case pending below, to provide the relief he had prayed for. Thus, the non-existence of any document to implicate the Revisionist, should not entitle the Revisionist to the relief sought by him as it  would be prejudging the  claim case of the OP/Complainant,   Under the circumstance, the impugned order does not appear to suffer from any illegality or irregularity and warrants no interference, from this end. As a result, the instant revision fails.

It is therefore,

                                                  ORDERED

That the instant revision be and the same is dismissed on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby upheld.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Jalpaiguri, for necessary information.