TRACTORS & FARM IMPLEMENTS CORPORATION SWARAJ Vs. SARDOOL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arun Tandon, learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Parmanand Sharma, learned Counsel for respondent No 4.

(2.) THE District Consumer Forum vide its impugned judgment dated 21.2.2007 allowed the complainant's complaint against the appellant, Tractors and Farm Implements Corporation with a direction to the latter to pay damages of Rs. 1,50,000 and replace the disputed tractor of 1999 model with a new tractor of 2004 model or refund its price of Rs 3,57,200 along - with 8% per annum interest. The appellant has not denied that the tractor in question has been sold to the respondent/complainant Sri Sardool Singh for a sum of Rs 3,57,200 nor it has been disputed that in all the relevant documents its model year was written as 2004, although it was an old tractor manufactured in the year 1999. The explanation offered for the wrong year of the model being mentioned is that the complainant approached the appellant Corporation for purchase of an old model but convinced its officials to tend it to be as a new one so that he could procure loan from the ICICI Bank, Bareilly. The Corporation had a sympathetic attitude for the complainant and in order to accelerate the sale of the tractor and also to help the complainant, it agreed to mention in all the relevant documents, i.e. sale letter and insurance papers, etc. that a new tractor of 2004 model was being sold to the complainant. Further it is submitted that the complainant paid merely a sum of Rs. 2,56,425 as financed by the aforesaid bank and issued a cheque for the balance amount of Rs 61,148. This cheque was dishonoured which led the Corporation to initiate a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complaint under Section 138 of the said Act was dismissed for want of evidence.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for both the parties.