At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
By, THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
By, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner: Gautam Godara, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, Ex parte, R2, U.C. Mittal, Karan Setiya, Advocates.
The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 22.3.2012 of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula ( in short, the State Commission) passed in Appeal No. 210 of 2007.
2. The brief facts of the case are that complainant’s father had taken a loan of Rs. 3.00 lakh from the SBI Bank- respondent No. 2 for purchasing new Eicher tractor. The loan was sanctioned to the complainant’s father on execution of mortgage deed of the agricultural land on 31.1.2003. The complainant’s contention is that opposite party No. 1/respondent No. 1 i.e. Goyal Agro Agency did not deliver any tractor to complainant’s father. The opposite party No. 2 issued notice dated 8.8.2003 for recovery of the amount, which according to the complainant, they are not liable to return because the tractor was never delivered to them by the opposite party. It is alleged that this amounts to deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
3. No reply was filed by State Bank of India/R-2 before District Forum. However, respondent No. 1 filed reply in which they took the stand that delivery was not taken by the father of the complainant, who instead being in need of money asked them to sale the tractor to any person and make the payment in cash. Complainant and respondent No. 1 led their evidences. Respondent No. 1, however, examined one of the witness from the bank of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte before the District Forum. After hearing the parties, the District Forum passed the order dated 6.10.2005. While the President of the District Forum passed the order in favour of the complainant, the other Member, differed with the order of the President. Thereafter, the matter was referred to third Member, who concurred with the findings of Member Sh. Jeet Ram Khanna and thereby dismissed the complaint vide order dated 8.12.2006 on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank because respondent No. 1 had been able to prove that tractor was sold at the instance of the father of the complainant after delivery was taken by him.
4. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the State Commission who also dismissed the appeal. The order of the State Commission is impugned before me on the ground that findings of the State Commission are based on conjectures and surmises and there is a wrong interpretation of facts of the case and the findings are perverse.
5. I have heard the arguments of the parties and perused the relevant record. The admitted facts proved on record are that loan of Rs. 3.00 lakh was sanctioned for purchasing a tractor against the hypothecation of the agricultural land. The loan amount was released to the seller of the said tractor. The only plea raised by the complainant was that tractor was never delivered to his father. Respondent No. 1 from whom the tractor was purchased had taken the following plea in his written version.
“In fact, the complainant and his father were in need of money and they were not interested in taking the delivery of tractor. They requested to the answering respondent to sell the tractor to any person and pay the amount in cash.”
6. It is apparent that no rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to controvert the above contention of respondent No. 1. It is also apparent that in his affidavit as well, the petitioner has not stated that his father had not taken the delivery and had not asked the respondent No. 1 to sell the tractor and hand over the cash to him. Respondent No. 1 in its affidavit also has clearly stated that delivery of tractor was taken by the father of the petitioner and, thereafter he sold it to someone.
7. In view of the above facts, which conclusively show that delivery had been taken by the father of the petitioner, it c
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
annot be said that respondent No. 1 had defaulted in any service. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, liability of the bank had ended when under the terms of loan agreement, money was released by the bank to respondent No. 1, seller of the tractor. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Revision petition has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.