This revision petition is directed against the order of the Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla dated 4.8.2016 in first appeal No.199/2016 resulting in dismissal of the appeal preferred by the petitioner/complaint against the order of the District Forum.
2. Briefly put, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Froum concerned alleging that he had purchased a tractor manufactured by respondent No.2, from respondent No.1. Grievance of the complainant is that the said tractor was a second hand tractor which was earlier sold by respondent No.1 to one Jagjeevan S/o Parshothom Lal. The other grievance of the petitioner is that tractor was suffering from manufacturing defect and it started giving trouble within few days from the purchase which could not be rectified.
3. The opposite party No.2 in its written statement admitted the sale of tractor by opposite party No.1 to the petitioner/complainant. However, the allegations regarding manufacturing defect and sale of second hand tractor representing as new was denied.
4. The District Forum on consideration of pleadings and the evidence did not find merit in the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission also on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the findings of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved of the concurrent findings of the Fora below the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order stating that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that from one invoice issued by opposite party No.1 service station it is clear that the subject tractor chassis No.GWRA-00041 was earlier sold to one Jagjeevan S/o Parshothom Lal. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has referred to the photocopy of the said invoice allegedly issued by M/s Anand Automobile (opposite party No.1). Contents of invoice are reproduced as under: -
“M/s Anand Auto Mobile
(Mahindra Tractor Dealer)
National Highway 20, Bodh,
Customer Name : JAGJEEVAN SO/Quotation No :RS00036
Father Name : PARSHTHOM LAL SO/Quotation Date:18/01/2015
Address : Tr.Srl.No. :GWRA00043
Village Name :Sunehar
Tehsil Name : Nagrota Bagwan
District Name :Kangra
Part No. Part Description Qty Rate Disc. Value Tax. Amount(Rs.)
003507044B1 CLUTCH RELEASE -38.1X67X16.5 1.00 402.86 0.00% VAT Tax 423.00
006507356591 CLUTCH COVER ASSEMBLY 1.00 1,515.24 0.00% VAT Tax 1,591.00
006507447B91 CLUTCH DISC ASSEMBLY(8) 1.00 1,302.86 0.00% VAT Tax 1,368.00
008001521B91 CHECK CHAN CPTE MODIFIED 1.00 365.67 0.00% VAT Tax 385.00
008001521B91 INJECTOR OVER FLOW PIPE AGNI1.00 256.19 0.00% VAT Tax 269.00
006009045B1 HIGH PRESSURE PIPE_AGNI 1.00 265.71 0.00% VAT Tax 279.00
Total Parts Value is Inclusive of:
Sales Tax 5.00% on 4,109.53 205.47
Parts Tax Amount:
Labour Desc. Value Tax Discount Total Value
Clutch Housing R & R 150.00 00000% 0.00% 150.00
Gear Box Housing R & R 150.00 00000% 0.00% 150.00
Disc. Amount: 0
Net Amount 4615
FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FIFTY ONLY.
For M/s Anand Auto Mobile., -423
Branch Manager 4192
6. We have considered the submissions which seem to be unfounded. It is admitted case of the complainant that he purchased the subject tractor from opposite party No.1 on 16.10.2014. On reading of the service station invoice relied upon by the petitioner/complainant we find that this invoice is dated 18.1.2015 in which the consumer name is mentioned as Jagjeevan. If the petitioner had purchased the subject tractor in October, 2014, there is no possibility of the tractor being sold by opposite party No.1 to Jagjeevan. Otherwise also, the name of Jagjeevan is shown as consumer and not registered owner. Therefore, it is not proved that the subject tractor was earlier sold to Jagjeevan. It may also be mentioned that the number which is projected as chassis number of the tractor on the invoice is slightly dim. However, on careful reading it appears that the chassis number of the tractor regarding which the invoice has been issued is GWRA-00043 and not GWRA-00041, which is the number of the tractor of the petitioner.
7. Under the aforesaid circumstances we do not find merit in the contention of the petitioner.
8. So far as the second contention that the tractor suffers from manufacturing defects is concerned, it may be noted that both the Fora below have returned concurrent finding of fact that no evidence to establish the manufacturing defect has been led. Petitioner has not been able to show cogent evidence to support the allegation of manufacturing defect. Thus, we do not find any reason to differ with the aforesaid finding of fact.
9. In view of the discussion above, we do not find any merit in the revision petition. Accordingly dismissed.