At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Appearing Parties: Soumya Chakraborty, Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
The complainant purchased a truck from the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.8,66,044/-. The vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 04.02.2008. Alleging that a second hand vehicle had been sold to him, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking refund of the amount which he had paid to the petitioner.2. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds but was allowed by the District Forum which directed the complainant to return the truck to the petitioner. The District Forum also directed the petitioner to refund the entire amount which it had received from the complainant alongwith the interest @ 9% per annum.3. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner approached this Commission by way of a Revision Petition. The Revision Petition was also dismissed by this Commission vide its detailed order dated 07.05.2010.4. The truck in question was brought by the complainant to the District Forum but the petitioner declined to take possession of the vehicle claiming that the documents which the complainant had brought alongwith the truck were expired documents.5. In execution proceedings filed by the complainant, an application was filed by the petitioner on 06.03.2014 seeking recall of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 whereby the Consumer Complaint was allowed. It was inter-alia stated in the application that though the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum upheld by the State Commission and the National Commission had been accepted by the complainant, the possession of the vehicle could not be taken by the petitioner the same not being in a road-worthy condition and its document having expired. The application seeking recall of its order dated 30.10.2009 was dismissed by the District Forum vide its order no.65 dated 20.06.2014. It was inter-alia noted by the District Forum that the petitioner had filed several applications alleging that the complainant had played a fraud upon the District Forum and he was never in possession of the vehicle either at the time of institution of the Consumer Complaint or during the period the case continued before the Consumer Fora. It had also been claimed before the District Forum that the vehicle was still in possession of the financer.6. The order No.65 dated 20.06.2014 passed by the District Forum was challenged before the State Commission which dismissed the appeal preferred against that order. It was held by the State Commission that the order passed in the Consumer Complaint having become final, the said appeal was not fit for admission. Being aggrieved from the above referred order of the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of Revision Petition No.4009 of 2014.7. In Revision Petition No.4010 of 2014, the petitioner has challenged the order of the State Commission dated 08.09.2014 holding that there was nothing wrong in the order of the District Forum requiring the petitioner to comply with the final order passed in the Consumer Complaint on 30.10.2009 which the State Commission had affirmed in FA No.456 of 2009.8. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner as stated by his counsel, appears to be that the complainant having got the purchase of the truck financed, he was not in its possession at the time the Consumer Complaint was filed and pursued, the truck when brought to the District Forum was not in a road-worthy condition and valid documents of the truck were not brought alongwith the truck despite the payment in terms of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 having already been made to the complainant.9. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the vehicle ought to have been in a road-worthy condition when it was brought to the District Forum and all the valid documents ought to have been handed over to the complainant alongwith the truck. A perusal of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 which was later upheld not only by the State Commission but also by this Commission, would show that there was no direction to the complainant to return the truck to the petitioner in a particular condition. Similarly, there was no direction to the complainant to hand over upto date valid documents of the vehicle alongwith the truck. If the petitioner wanted return of the truck in a good condition, it ought to have made such a prayer either to the District Forum, to the State Commission or to this Commission. That however, was not done and the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009 which did not stipulate any such requirement, became final. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have accepted the possession of the truck in the condition in which it was brought to the District Forum. In execution proceedings, no directions could have been given to the complainant to repair and bring the vehicle in a condition acceptable to the petitioner. Similarly, since no direction for return of upto date documents of the truck was contained in the order dated 30.10.2009 which was upheld by the State Commission as well as by this Commission, the fora below could not have directed the complainant to provide valid upto date documents of the truck to the petitioner. Therefore, the view taken by the State Commission was justified and does not call for any interference by this Commission.10. A perusal of the order no. 35 passed by the District Forum on 06.03.2012 which is extracted in order no.66 dated 20.06.2014, would show that the vehicle was brought to the District Forum on 06.03.2012 alongwith the papers and the key of the vehicle but the petitioner did not take possession of the vehicle claiming that the documents were not upto date. The District Forum held that it could not make any addition or alteration to the order passed in the Consumer Complaint and therefore, the petitioner should receive the vehicle alongwith its keys and the papers as produced by the complainant. However, the petitioner declined to take possession of the vehicle.11. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the complainant that having produced the vehicle before the District Forum on 13.02.2012, the complainant had discharged the obligation placed upon him by the District Forum vide its order dated 30.10.2009 passed in the Consumer Complaint and the complainant could not be expected to maintain the vehicle in the same condition in which it was sold. It is therefore, directed that the vehicle shall be again brought by the complainant before the District Forum on a date to be fixed by the District Forum for this purpose. The truck will be brought in its existing condition and will be offered to the petitioner which will accept the possession of the truck in its condition existing at that time. If the petitioner again declines to receive the vehicl
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
e on that date, there will be no further obligation on the complainant to produce the vehicle and he shall stand discharged of the obligation placed upon him by way of the order of the District Forum dated 30.10.2009. As far as the documents of the vehicle are concerned, the complainant shall hand over to the petitioner all such documents as are in his possession at the time the vehicle is brought to the District Forum in terms of this order. If the petitioner accepts delivery of the vehicle alongwith the documents brought by the complainant, it shall be open to him to avail such remedy, if any, as may be open to him in law against the complainant for not keeping the documents upto date. The Revision Petitions stand disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.