BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 459 of 2019
Date of Institution: 13.08.2019
Date of Decision : 30.05.2022
Rakesh Kumar, aged 40 years son of Shri Parkash, resident of village Shekhupuria, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Ahuja Motors, HUDA Bye Pass, Near GTM, Hisar Road, Sirsa through its Managing Shri Avtar Singh.
2. Avtar Singh, Manager, Ahuja Motors, HUDA Bye Pass, Near GTM, Hisar Road, Sirsa.
3. CNH Industrial (India) Pvt. Ltd., Industrial Plot No.3, Udyog Kendra, Greater NOIDA, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pardesh- 201 306, through its Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (after amendment under section 35 of C.P. Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. H.S. Raghav, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.
Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Advocate for opposite party no.3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (after amendment under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant desired to purchase one tractor for agricultural purposes whereupon op no.2 being Manager of op no.1 suggested the complainant to purchase New Holland Tractor of 3600-2 Model. The op no.2 quoted the price of this tractor as Rs.7,01,000/- and stated that complainant will be given discount of Rs.21,000/- as per policy of the company and that said tractor will be got fully insured by ops against the amount of Rs.8159/- and also assured that same will also be got registered with Registering Authority by them. Accordingly, complainant agreed to purchase the said tractor and placed the order for the same on 3.11.2018 and paid a sum of Rs.3,58,000/- to the ops no.1 and 2 on 3.11.2018 through RTGS. The tractor in question was supplied to the complainant on 5.11.2018 vide invoice dated 5.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.7,01,000/-. The complainant made payment of Rs.3,58,000/- on 5.11.2018 through RTGS and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash. It is further averred that out of the above price of tractor, a sum of Rs.21,000/- was to be paid back to the complainant as discount and they had to get the said tractor fully insured. The complainant was also given 12 months warranty on the tractor against all manufacturing defects. It is further averred that ops had to charge Rs.7,09,159/- towards the above tractor, whereas ops no.1 and 2 charged Rs.7,26,000/- from complainant and thus, they charged a sum of Rs.16,841/- in excess from complainant.
3. It is further averred that op no.2 did not pay the discount of Rs.21,000/- to the complainant and got insured the tractor only for third party risk instead of full insurance. The op no.2 got registered tractor from Licensing Authority, Motor Vehicle, Ellenabad whereas the village of complainant falls within the jurisdiction of Registering Authority, Sirsa. The said tractor bears registration No. HR44K0582. The complainant further noticed that look of the tractor is an old one. The tractor also developed defect therein as its engine used to take load on operational mode and also used to consume more oil. It is further averred that complainant on noticing the above discrepancies in the delivery of tractor and defects visited the ops no.1 and 2 and lodged a protest with them but op no.2 very rudely and arrogantly stated that they had to sell the said tractor to the complainant by making allurements and he felt trapped and stated that he can do what he wants to do. That said defect in the said vehicle is still continuing and it appears that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle, which cannot be removed by repairs etc. It is further averred that complainant is entitled to either replacement of above vehicle with a new one or refund of its price. That complainant approached the ops and requested them to either replace the above defective tractor with a new one or to refund its price and also to pay Rs.16,841/- charged in excess, to pay discount amount of Rs.21,000/-, to get the vehicle fully insured and also to pay him a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension but ops did not pay any heed to the same. That the ops by their such act and conduct committed gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. The complainant also got served legal notice upon ops on 8.5.2019 which was duly received by them. The op no.3 vide its reply dated 5.6.2019 has refused to admit the claim of complainant and two days back also, ops have refused to admit his claim. Hence, this complaint.
4. Ops were served. Ops no.1 and 2 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant has purchased Tractor from op no.1 by his own choice and that too after satisfying himself with the quality and other specifications/ financials. The company is carrying its business through its dealers throughout the country. The answering ops are dealer of the company and they have sold the tractor as per terms and conditions of the company which were provided by company. The answering ops did not provide any insurance policy to the complainant rather the insurance company insured the tractor as per their terms and value of the vehicle. It is further submitted that answering ops filled up the data in their computer as per documents supplied by complainant at the time of delivery of tractor and all the documents supplied by complainant to the ops were delivered to the concerned registration authority as per law and copy of receipt regarding this was supplied to the complainant at the time of delivery of tractor. The complainant had not raised any objection to any of authority. It is further submitted that answering ops have charged only the tractor price which was fixed by company from complainant and they have never charged any other additional amount from the complainant. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Op no.3 filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections regarding no privity of contract between complainant and answering op, maintainability and concealment of material facts, jurisdiction, cause of action and that tractor does not have any manufacturing defect and complainant has never reported any issue with the tractor to the answering op and has only alleged the defects for the first time in the complaint and that complainant has not annexed report of any independent expert or any other documents to substantiate the alleged defects. On merits, it is submitted that complainant purchased the tractor in question by his own choice and after satisfying himself with the quality and other specifications etc. The answering op is carrying its business through its dealers throughout the country on Principal to Principal basis. There is no privity of contract between complainant and answering op and answering op does not sell its tractors directly to the customers. The answering op is only responsible for providing of service as per service and warranty manual. OP no.3 is not responsible for registration of tractor. It is specifically denied that there is any defect in the engine of the said tractor and that engine takes load on operational mode. It is further denied that the engine of the tractor consumes more oil as alleged. It is further submitted that as per the records of op, the said tractor was brought to the dealership only once and that too for the first regular service. No complaint has been reported by complainant to op no.1 with regard to any kind of defect till date thereby conforming that the said tractor has been performing satisfactorily. It is denied that there is any defect in the said tractor as alleged by complainant. The complainant has never raised any concern with the answering op with respect of the said tractor at any point of time prior to the issuance of legal notice and upon receipt of legal notice dated 8.5.2019 having false and frivolous allegations, the said notice was duly replied by answering op vide its reply dated 5.6.2019. It is further submitted that answering op’s authorized dealers are always ready to resolve the issues relating to the performance and maintenance of the tractors being raised by the customers. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
6. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of application moved under RTI Ex.C1, information received under RTI Ex.C2, tax invoice of the amount of Rs.7,01,000/- Ex.C3, copy of policy schedule cum certificate of insurance Ex.C4, copy of registration certificate Ex.C5, copy of statement of account Ex.C6, copy of job card dated 3.12.2018 Ex.C7, legal notice Ex.C8, postal receipts Ex. C9 to Ex.C11, reply to legal notice Ex.C12, copy of PAN card Ex.C13.
7. Op no.3 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Parminder Singh Service Engineer and authorized representative as Ex.RW1/A, letter of authority Ex.RW1/B.
8. Ops no.1 and 2 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Avtar Singh Manager as Ex.RW2/A and copy of job card dated 15.7.2021 Ex.RW2/B and copy of job card dated 3.12.2018 Ex.RW1/C.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
10. Learned counsel for complainant contended that ops no. 1 and 2 have charged a sum of Rs.16,841/- in excess against the value against invoice issued by op no.1 of the tractor purchased by complainant in which value of the tractor has been mentioned as Rs.7,01,000/-. It is also contended by learned counsel for complainant that ops no.1 and 2 have agreed to give discount of Rs.21,000/- out of the value of the tractor but did not pay the said amount to the complainant. He has further contended that ops have also charged for registration of tractor but tractor was got registered at Ellenabad instead of Sirsa since complainant is resident of village Shekhupuria which is within RLA authority of Sirsa. Learned counsel for complainant has further contended that ops have got insured the tractor in question for third party risk only instead of comprehensive insurance whereas they have charged for comprehensive insurance. He has further contended that within one month of purchase of tractor in question, the ops no.1 and 2 have also charged an amount of Rs.3680/- from the complainant at the time of first service of tractor in question whereas they were under liability to provide free services. Learned counsel for complainant has also contended that ops have sold an old tractor to the complainant and prayed that complaint may be allowed.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 and 2 has contended that ops no.1 and 2 have charged only value of the tractor and not charged any additional amount from the complainant. He has further contended that they have not get insured the tractor of complainant and the tractor was got registered on the documents supplied by complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
12. Learned counsel for op no.3 has contended that there are no allegations against op no.3 regarding any manufacturing defect in the tractor and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
13. We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties. The perusal of the evidence led by complainant reveals that op no.1 had issued invoice (Ex.C3) of the value of the tractor to the sum of Rs.7,01,000/- and complainant has established on record through statement of account Ex.C6 that he had paid total amount of Rs.7,16,000/- to the op no.1 i.e. Rs.3,58,000/- through RTGS on 3.11.2018 and Rs.3,58,000/- through RTGS on 5.11.2018 and thus ops no.1 and 2 have charged an amount of Rs.15,000/- in excess against the value of the tractor of Rs.7,01,000/-. Though, complainant has also alleged that he has also paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to ops no.1 and 2 in cash but payment of this amount to ops has been denied by ops no.1 and 2 and there is also no record to this effect and no receipt of this amount has been placed on record regarding initial payment of Rs.10,000/-.
14. It is also established on record that complainant is resident of village Shekhupuria which is within territorial jurisdiction of Registering & Licensing Authority, Sirsa but registration certificate of tractor was got issued by ops from Ellenabad which is deficiency in service on the part of ops no.1 and 2 and amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of ops and over charging of value of the tractor also amounts to unfair trade practice on their part as they have charged more than the rate of the tractor fixed by the company. Though, complainant has alleged that ops no.1 and 2 have charged an amount of Rs.3680/- from complainant at the time of free service but the perusal of job card Ex.C7 reveals that op no.1 has charged the said amount of Rs.3680/- for lubes and kit filter. Further, there is nothing on file to prove any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question and on 15.7.2021 the complainant has also got serviced the tractor from op no.1 as is evident from copy of job card Ex.RW2/B and at that time also the complainant has not reported any manufacturing defect in the tractor and also defect in the engine of the tractor. It is also not proved by complainant by leading cogent and convincing evidence that ops no.1 and 2 have sold an old tractor to the complainant. There is also no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of op no.3. However, complainant has duly proved on record that ops no.1 and 2 have charged Rs.15,000/- in excess than the market value of the tractor in question.
15. In view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite parties no.1 and 2 and direct the ops no.1 and 2 to make refund of the amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. We also direct the ops no.1 and 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for getting registered the tractor at Ellenabad instead of Sirsa and for harassment. We also direct the ops no.1 and 2 to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops no.1 and 2 are liable to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they will pay the total amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @7% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. However, complaint qua op no.3 stands dismissed. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 30.05.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
JK
