w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

M/s. Sabita Automobiles Prop. Sudip Rudra v/s Dilip Kumar Sarkar & Another

    Revision Petition No. 902 of 2018

    Decided On, 28 August 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioner: Dibyanshu Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Amin Safique Molla, R2, Rahul Sharma, Advocates.

Judgment Text


The complainants placed an order with the petitioner for purchase of a new Holland Tractor model no. 3600-2. The tractor delivered to him however, was model no. 4710 of 47 HP. The complainants wanted replacement of the tractor and that having not been done, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. It would also be pertinent to note here that after purchase of the tractor, the complainants also purchased an equipment from the petitioner. The cheque which the complainant issued towards the price of the equipment, was dishonoured when presented to the bank and a criminal complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was therefore, filed against him. The consumer complaint was resisted by the petitioner primarily on the ground that though the complainants had initially booked model no. 3600-2 of 51 HP, he later on changed his mind and wanted a lower model bearing no. 4710 of 47 HP and that is why tractor no. 4710 was delivered to him.

2. The District Forum having dismissed the complaint, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 22.11.2017, the State Commission allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner to return the money which it had received from the complainant. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Commission.

3. The only question in this petition is as to whether the complainant had willingly purchased model no. 4710 or he was deceived by the petitioner by delivering the same against an order for model no. 3600-2.

4. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the invoice issued at the time of sale of the tractor to the complainant. The said invoice bears model no. 4710, HP 47 in the column meant for description of the goods. The invoice is dated 31.10.2011. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that delivery of the tractor is given in advance and the invoice is issued at a later date when the finance is arranged by the purchaser through the bank. That seems to be a reason why the invoice mentions the name of Union Bank of India as the financer and the name of the complainant as the buyer (borrower). The petitioner has placed on record the delivery challan in which the model number of the tractor is recorded as 4740, in the column meant for description of the goods. The delivery challan is also signed by the complainant. His signatures on the delivery challan appear in English indicate that he is not illiterate and is somewhat educated. The photograph of the tractor filed by the petitioner today in the Court also shows that model no. is clearly printed on the tractor itself. Therefore, it is obvious that at the time of taking delivery of the tractor itself, the complainant was fully aware that he was taking delivery of model no. 4710 and not of model no. 3600-2. The affidavit which the petitioner has filed in compliance of the order of this Commission dated 30.05.2018 would show that the price of model no. 3600-2 was Rs.6,50,072/- whereas the price of model no.4710 of 47 HP was Rs.5,99,592/-. It therefore, appears that considering the cost difference, the complainant later on changed his mind and opted for model no. 4710 instead of model no. 3600-2. The complainant having taken delivery of model no. 4710, opted by him on or before the time of taking delivery, it cannot be said that he was

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

hoodwinked by the petitioner and model no. 4710 was delivered to him in place of model no. 3600-2. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order passed by the State Commission cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The consumer complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. The revision petition stands disposed of.