BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 168 of 2014.
Date of Institution : 28.11.2014.
Date of Decision : 30.1.2017.
Ram Singh son of Shri Om Parkash son of Shri Mahi Ram, resident of Sukhera Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Aman Automobile, General Sales Spare and Service Dealer Eicher (A Unit of T.M.T.L.) G.T. Road, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
2. Sonu Distributor (Manager), Aman Automobile, resident of Dabwali, District Sirsa.
3. Eicher Tractors, Regd. office: 35, Nungambakkam High Road, Chennai- 600 034.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL………..……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vishnu Bhagwan, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Satbir Godara, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he approached opposite parties no.1 & 2 for taking advise to purchase a tractor of eicher company and op no.2 allured him and forced him to purchase the tractor from him. As such a deal for selling the old tractor of complainant for an amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was settled and price of Rs.3,05,000/- was settled for purchase of new tractor. On 26.3.2014, he deposited an amount of Rs.2000/- with them for purchase of tractor and on 27.3.2014 he got approved loan amount of Rs.2,20,000/- from Cholomandlam finance company. The complainant deposited total amount of Rs.3,77,000/- with ops No.1 & 2 and out of the said amount he took back an amount of Rs.50,000/-. At the time of purchase of tractor, the ops No.1 & 2 told him that there is scheme of prize for which a coupon will be given to him and he can win amount of Rs.5,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in this scheme but till today they have not given aforesaid coupon to him and have played fraud upon him. Besides it, the ops have received an amount of Rs.22,000/- in excess from him but have not returned the same to him despite demands. In this way, the ops have caused harassment to him. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared and filed written statement submitting therein that complainant was not forced by them to purchase the tractor rather the complainant wanted to purchase a new Eicher tractor from them. The ops never agreed to purchase old tractor of complainant for Rs.1,55,000/-. The complainant agreed to purchase a new eicher tractor for Rs.3,30,393/- which was purchased by him. There was scheme of the company to give a coupon for Rs.5000/- to the customer. The complainant did not want to get the said coupon and got adjusted the amount of Rs.5000/- in the sale consideration. The ops had sold the tractor for Rs.3,30,393/- only and never purchased the old tractor of complainant for Rs.1,55,000/-. It is wrong that price of the new tractor was told by them as Rs.3,05,000/-, but after adjusting the coupon amount and after deducting the discount given by the company, the tractor was sold to the complainant for Rs.3,05,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.85,000/- in cash and got financed amount of Rs.2,20,000/-. The ops have issued a bill No.219 dated 29.3.2014 and no cheating has been committed by them with the complainant. The ops have also given the discount of Rs.20,393/- from their account. No excess amount was received by them.
3. Op no.3 in its written statement replied that present complaint is not maintainable in the present form because complainant has not mentioned the correct and true facts in his complaint. He has no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint against op no.3 because op no.1 informed the answering op that complainant having some commercial dispute with the op no.1 vide letter dated 3.3.2016 which is enclosed herewith. The complainant had made the answering op as a necessary party in this case after thought at the very later stage to harass. The complaint is of civil nature and not maintainable before this Forum because complainant has not mentioned any technical problem in his tractor.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence copy form No.21 Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of form No.22 Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavit of op no.2 Ex.R1, letter dated 3.3.2016 Ex.R2, writing on letter pad Ex.R3, list of price of tractors Ex.R4, copy of bill Ex.R5, copy of receipt dated 29.3.2014 Ex.R5-A and copy of bill dated 28.3.2014 relating to Bhup Singh issued by Shivdei Enterprises for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/- Ex.R6.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The only question to decide the present complaint is whether the opposite parties received an amount of Rs.22,000/- in excess as alleged by complainant or not. To prove his case, complainant produced copy of form No.21 Ex.C1, copy of bill for an amount of Rs.3,05,000/- Ex.C2, copy of form No.22 Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Whereas, the ops produced affidavit Ex.R1 supporting the version of the ops, copy of letter dated 3.3.2016 Ex.R2, writing on letter pad Ex.R3, price list of tractors Ex.R4, again copy of bill of tractor Ex.R5 and copy of bill issued by Shivdei Enterprises for some another tractor of same model sold to one Bhup Singh showing the price of tractor as Rs.3,20,000/-. From all the evidence available on record, it is proved that ops received the less price of the tractor in comparison to another dealer at Sirsa. Moreover, complainant failed to prove his case even by filing his own affidavit. Resultantly, we are of the considered view that this complaint deserves dismissal having no merits. Accordingly, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:30.01.2017. Member. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
