State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Modern Tractors vs Atma Ram on 31 October, 2012
2nd Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.579 of 2008.
Date of Institution: 12.06.2008.
Date of Decision: 31.10.2012.
M/s Modern Tractors, G.T. Road, Malout, District Muktsar through its
Authorized Partner Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Atma Ram S/o Sh. Chanan Ram, R/o Boha, Tehsil Budhlada, District
Mansa.
2. IndusInd Bank Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
30.04.2008 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Member.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
...................................
Present:- None for the appellant.
None for respondent no.1.
None for respondent no.2.
--------------------
INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING MEMBER:-
This order shall disposed of the following three (3) appeals, as the question of law and facts involved in all the appeals are similar and the appeals are directed against the similar orders dated 30.04.2008 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "the District Forum"):-
Sr. No. Appeal Number Name of Parties
1. F.A. No.579 of 2008 M/s Modern Tractors
Vs Atma Ram & Anr.
2. F.A. No.580 of 2008 M/s Modern Tractors
Vs Kulwinder Singh & Anr.
First Appeal No.579 of 2008 2
3. F.A. No.581 of 2008 M/s Modern Tractors
Vs Gagandeep & Anr.
The facts are taken from First Appeal No.579 of 2008 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Atma Ram, respondent no.1/complainant (hereinafter called as "respondent no.1") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant, OP-2(not made party in appeal) and respondent no.2, pleading that he purchased Toofan Trax Force vehicle by paying margin money of Rs.1.00 lac to the appellant and OP-2 and the remaining amount was got financed from respondent no.2. The appellant and OP-2 were required to deliver the documents of the said vehicle to respondent no.2 for making entry of the hypothecation in the registration certificate, but neither the appellant nor OP-2 delivered the documents to respondent no.1 or to respondent no.2 and for that, the vehicle in question could not be registered. Whenever the vehicle was taken on the road, it was challaned and respondent no.1 paid Rs.6760/- as penalty for the same and it has caused a great loss to respondent no.1. Ultimately, the vehicle has to be parked in the house of respondent no.1 and he suffered loss of Rs.20,000/- per month, besides insurance amount and interest. Respondent no.1 is unable to do his work and is under mental tension. Till date, the respondent no.1 has suffered a loss of Rs.1.00 lac due to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and OP-2 as well as respondent no.2.
3. It was prayed that the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2 be directed to deliver the bill/documents, service book and pay Rs.98,000/- be awarded as compensation.
4. In the written reply filed on behalf of the appellant and OP-2, preliminary objections were taken that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the First Appeal No.579 of 2008 3 complaint. Respondent no.1 has purchased the vehicle for commercial purpose and is not a consumer.
5. On merits, it was admitted that respondent ono.1 has purchased the said vehicle from the appellant at Malout and payment was made to the appellant at Malout through the cheque. The appellant has already given all the documents relating to the vehicle in question to respondent no.1 in due process and respondent no.1 has fabricated the story. There is no question of any loss and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and OP-2. Allegations of the complaint were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
6. In the written reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2, similar preliminary objections were taken and on merits, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was financed and the same was purchased by respondent no.1 from appellant and OP-2 and the payment was made to them. It was further pleaded that respondent no.1 has not submitted the documents of the vehicle to the answering respondent for recording hypothecation, despite repeated notices and demands, with malafide intention. Other allegations of complaint were denied and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
7. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
8. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that the vehicle was purchased by respondent no.1 from the appellant and OP-2 and they were to deliver the documents to them and not the respondent no.2, with whom there was no privity of contract. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of respondent no.2. Appellant and OP-2 have not placed any document regarding the receipt of documents of the vehicle by respondent no.1. Had the documents been delivered, then he could get the vehicle registered with the registering authority. Mere producing and proving copy Ex.R-2 of the retail invoice dated First Appeal No.579 of 2008 4 09.05.2007 does not advance their cause. The complaint was allowed and the appellant and OP-2 were directed to deliver the retail invoice/purchase documents/ service book and all other documents for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1500/- as costs.
9. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 30.04.2008, the appellant has come up in appeal.
10. None appeared on behalf of the parties at the time of arguments. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and perused the record of the learned District Forum.
11. Respondent no.1 purchased Toofan Trax Force vehicle by paying Rs.1.00 lac to the appellant and OP-2 and the said vehicle was got financed from respondent no.2. OP-2 admitted in the written statement that respondent no.1 purchased the said vehicle from it at Malout and the payment was made at Malout through the cheque. It was further pleaded that the appellant has already given all the documents relating to the vehicle in question. The version of respondent no.1 is that even after receiving the payment of the vehicle in question, the documents were not supplied to him, whereas the plea of the appellant and OP-2 is that all the documents were supplied. Ex.R-1 is the affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, partner of the appellant, who has reproduced the reply and Ex.R-2 is the Retail Invoice as per which the vehicle in question was sold to respondent no.1 on 09.05.2007 for Rs.5.00 lacs. The appellant or OP-2 has not produced any other document by way of receipt vide which the documents were supplied to respondent no.1. The plea that the documents were supplied is not supported by any documentary evidence, because the appellant was supposed to keep in its possession the receipt of the documents supplied or any other document proving that all the documents were supplied to respondent no.1 at the time of sale of the vehicle in question. The order of the District Forum is detailed and First Appeal No.579 of 2008 5 speaking one and there is no ground to interfere with the same. The appeal being false and frivolous deserves to be dismissed with costs.
12. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the impugned order under appeal dated 30.04.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. Payment of costs shall be made by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order.
13. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
14. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant and OP-2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.580 of 2008:-
15. Similarly, in F.A. No.580 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Kulwinder Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1-Kulwinder Singh purchased Toofan Trax Force vehicle, bearing Chassis No.757048136 A 07, Engine No.2701605, Model 2007, by paying margin money to the appellant and OP- 2 and the remaining amount was got financed from respondent no.2. The appellant and OP-2 did not deliver the documents to respondent no.1 or to respondent no.2 and for that, the vehicle in question could not be registered. Whenever the vehicle was taken on the road, it was challaned and the vehicle has to be parked in his house which has caused a great loss to respondent no.1, besides loss of insurance amount and interest. Respondent no.1 is unable to do his work has suffered a loss of Rs.98,000/- due to the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and OP-2 as well as respondent no.2. It was prayed that the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2 be directed to First Appeal No.579 of 2008 6 deliver the bill/documents, service book and pay Rs.98,000/- be awarded as compensation.
16. The complaint was contested the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2 by filing written replies on the similar lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.579 of 2008.
17. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.04.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the appellant and OP-2 to deliver the retail invoice/purchase documents/service book and all other documents for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1500/- as costs.
18. In view of the reasons and discussions held in F.A. No.579 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Atma Ram & Anr.), F.A. No.580 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Kulwinder Singh & Anr.) is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the impugned order under appeal dated 30.04.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. Payment of costs shall be made by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order.
19. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant-Kulwinder Singh by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
20. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant and OP-2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.581 of 2008:-
21. Similarly, in F.A. No.581 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Kulwinder Singh & Anr.), respondent no.1-Gagandeep purchased Toofan Trax Force vehicle by paying margin money of Rs.1,50,000/- to the appellant First Appeal No.579 of 2008 7 and OP-2 and the remaining amount was got financed from respondent no.2. The appellant and OP-2 did not deliver the documents to respondent no.1 or to respondent no.2 and for that, the vehicle in question could not be registered. The said vehicle met with an accident on 23.07.2007 and the vehicle is lying parking in Police Station, Dhanola. The respondent no.1 could not get the vehicle on sapurdari, as the documents of the vehicle were not in his possession. The vehicle suffered considerable loss in the accident. The vehicle was insured with the insurance company, but for want of documents of the vehicle, the claim could not be lodged with the insurance company. The condition of the vehicle is further deteriorating because it is parked outside the police station. The respondent no.1 claims Rs.8.00 lacs in all from the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2, which includes insurance amount, interest, compensation etc. It was prayed that the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2 be directed either to pay Rs.8.00 lacs as compensation or to deliver the documents of the vehicle with compensation of Rs.3.00 lacs.
22. The complaint was contested the appellant, OP-2 and respondent no.2 by filing written replies on the similar lines of their replies filed in F.A. No.579 of 2008.
23. The District Forum vide its order dated 30.04.2008 allowed the complaint and directed the appellant and OP-2 to deliver the retail invoice/purchase documents/service book and all other documents for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1500/- as costs.
24. In view of the reasons and discussions held in F.A. No.579 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Atma Ram & Anr.), F.A. No.581 of 2008 (M/s Modern Tractors Vs Gagandeep & Anr.) is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) and the impugned order under appeal dated 30.04.2008 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. Payment of costs shall be made by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order. First Appeal No.579 of 2008 8
25. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.5,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant-Gagandeep by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
26. Remaining amount as per the impugned order shall be paid by the appellant and OP-2 to respondent no.1/complainant within 60 days of receipt of copy of the order.
27. The arguments in all the appeals were heard on 22.10.2012 and the orders were reserved. Now the orders be communicated to the parties.
28. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
29. Copy of the order be placed in following cases:-
F.A. No.580 of 2008 M/s Modern Tractors
Vs Kulwinder Singh & Anr.,
F.A. No.581 of 2008 M/s Modern Tractors
Vs Gagandeep & Anr.
(Inderjit Kaushik)
Presiding Member
(Baldev Singh Sekhon)
Member
October 31, 2012.
(Gurmeet S)