Karnataka

Kolar

CC/07/150

Papanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anthony Raj - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Krishnamurthy

12 Aug 2008

ORDER


THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/150

Papanna
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Anthony Raj
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 24.07.2007 Disposed on 18.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 18th Day of August 2008 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No.150/2007 Between:- Papanna, S/o Talari Venkatarayappa, Gonimardahalli Village, Sidlaghatta Post, Kolar District. Complainant (By Advocate Sri. C.R.Krishnamurthy) V/s 1. Anthony Raj, Dealer for Mitsubishi Shakti Power Tillers, Sales Service, B.B.Road, Chikkaballapur (T), Kolar District. 2. Chandra Mohan, Field Officer Dealer for Eicher Tractors, Trucks & Sakes Service, B.B.Road, Vapasandra, Chikkaballapur (T), Kolar District. CC No.150/2007 3. The Manager, Canara Bank, Dibburahalli Branch, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Kolar. District. Opposite parties (OP-1 & 2 Ex-parte) (OP-3 By Advocate Sri. N.G.Vasudev Moorthy & Others) ORDER This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against opposite parties 1 and 2 to issue original documents and to deliver materials worth Rs.2,38,619/- and to give prize scheme materials i.e., Mobile, and TVS Victor Bike to complainant and to award costs etc., 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint may be stated as fallows: That OP-1 is a dealer in tractor and OP-2 is the field officer working under OP-1 and that OP-3 bank is the financer for purchase of the tractor and accessories. The complainant is an agriculturist. He approached OP-1 and 2 for purchase of Eicher Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under: Part No. Description Amount Eicher Tractor 45 HP 3,66,780-00 Engine No. 510827224031 Chassis No. 910911544494 Trailer 0,95,000-00 Cultivator 0,28,250-00 Disc Plough 0,32,000-00 Total 5,22,030-00 CC No.150/2007 The complainant obtained agricultural loan from OP-3 bank and sent the cheque to OP-1 on 21.07.2005. Thereafter OP-1 delivered tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-40 T-3588 and KA-40 T-3589 to the complainant in presence of OP-2 and 3, but he did not deliver other items like Bumper Top, Disc Plough, Cultivator, Leveler and Blade Trailer. It is alleged that the tractor and trailer supplied to complainant were old and used one, but they were painted to look like new one. It is alleged that the documents relating to tractor and trailer like RC, Insurance Certificate etc., were not handed over to complainant. It is further alleged that OPs-1 and 2 had promised that they would give one Mobile and one TVS Victor Bike as a prize for purchase of tractor and trailer, but they did not give any such prize as promised. It is alleged that only the tractor and trailer worth Rs.2,86,000/- were supplied but other accessory items worth Rs.2,38,619/- were not delivered to complainant by OPs-1 and 2. It is alleged that inspite of repeated demands OPs-1 and 2 failed to deliver other materials and to hand over original documents. Therefore the complainant filed the above complaint. 3. OP-3 bank appeared and filed its version. It is stated in its version that this OP granted loan after obtaining invoice and quotation for tractor and trailer and other accessories from complainant and disbursed the said loan to OP-1. It is contended that the loan was repayable in installments, but the complainant failed to repay the amount as per terms and conditions of the loan. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. CC No.150/2007 4. The notices issued to OPs-1 and 2 from this Forum under RPAD returned un-served stating that the addressees left the address. Then the complainant had filed a memo stating that OPs-1 and 2 were in the same address. Therefore the notices were again sent to them under RPAD. The said notices were also un-served stating that the addressees left the address. Thinking that OPs-1 and 2 were evading the service of notices, the Forum held that the service of notice on OPs-1 and 2 is sufficient. Thereafter the case was posted for complainant’s evidence on 03.12.2007. The case has been adjourned on several dates for leading the evidence of complainant. Inspite of it the complainant has not led any evidence. 5. The OP-3 in its version contended that the complainant has come with false allegations and the loan was granted as per the quotation furnished by complainant and it had fallowed the required procedure for granting and disbursing the loan. Therefore the burden was on the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint, even though OPs-1 and 2 remained absent in the proceedings. The averments in the complaint were not prima-facie supported by any reliable allegations or documents. The complainant has produced the copy of RC relating to tractor and trailer. It shows that the tractor and trailer were manufactured in 2005 and the registration was effected on 21.03.2005. Therefore the allegation that old tractor and trailer were supplied after painting them to look like new one appears to be not true. If accessories were not delivered it appears the complainant would have taken legal steps much earlier to the filing of this complaint. No document is produced to show CC No.150/2007 that there was an offer by OP-1 to give certain gifts to the persons purchasing tractor from him. In such circumstance we hold that the complainant has failed to establish his case. 6. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 18th day of August 2008. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT