Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that on 02.10.2019, the complainant had purchased a tractor i.e. Sonalika DI-750 RX having engine no.4100EL93E847370F16, Chassis no.FZUDS850329S3 from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,90,500/- vide receipt no.128 dated 10.06.2019 Rs.1,80,000/- vide receipt no.141 dated 12.07.2019 and in this way total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been  paid by the complainant to Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 vide above said various receipt and taking over the custody of the tractor from Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 vide delivery challan no.305 dated 02.10.2019. Alleged that after paying full and final payment of the above said tractor, the complainant has taken the custody of the tractor from Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 and at that time Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that both of them get prepared the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle and did not handed over the bill/invoice of the said tractor to the complainant by saying that the same will be required for preparing the RC of the tractor. Thereafter inspite of various request and visit of the complainant at the showroom, Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 did not prepare the RC of the tractor and after about 6 months i.e. on 22.03.2020, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 lingered the matter with the pretext of pandemic situation of Noval Corona Virus and till date neither any bill of the tractor nor RC of the tractor has been handed over by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the complainant and now the dealership of Sonalika Tractor has been surrendered by Opposite Parties no.1 & 2. In this regard, the complainant also approached Opposite Party No.3 with a request to provide bill or RC of the tractor so that the complainant himself could prepare the RC of his tractor, but Opposite Party No.3 refused to do the needful. Due to such act and conduct of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to get prepare the RC of the tractor or to provide the bill of the tractor to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.5,00,500/- i.e. price of the tractor to the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.21,000/- as costs of the complaint.

2.       Notice of the complaint was duly issued to Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, but despite service of notice, Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through any representative, hence Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte.

3.       Opposite Party No.4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary therein inter alia that Opposite Party No.4 is manufacturer of Sonalika branc of Tractors and appoints and deals with its dealers on principal to principal basis. The dealers purchase tractors from Opposite Party No.4 on payment basis and then further sell the same to their customers against their own invoice. At the time of sale of tractors to the dealers Form No.22 is sent to the dealers alongwith tractor, the dealer further issues the same to its customers alongwith its own invoice and form no.21 i.e. sale certificate. It is the responsibility of the customers to get the tractor registered with the concerned RTO. After sale, service and repair work is also provided by the authorized dealers. The Opposite Party No.4 being manufacturer neither sells any tractor or deals with any customer directly nor accept any consideration from any customer and does not issue Registration Certificate to any customer and even not taken any responsibility for the same. Hence there is no privity of contract in between the complainant and Opposite Party No.4. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are not the agents of Opposite Party No.4. Liability of Opposite Party No.4 is limited to the extent repair/replacement of any part of the tractor as per warranty norms which are done at dealership end. There is no allegation of any warranty related issues in the present complaint, hence there is no cause of action to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No.4. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

4.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. 

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.4 has placed on record copies of documents Ex.OP4/1 to Ex.OP4/3 and affidavit of Sh.Rajnish Kumar Sandal, DGM (Legal) Authorized Person, M/s International Tractors Limited as Ex.OP4/4.

6.       It is pertinent to mention here that vide separate statement of even date, the complainant has withdrawn the present complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

7.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

8.       Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant had purchased a tractor i.e. Sonalika DI-750 RX having engine no.4100EL93E847370F16, Chassis no.FZUDS850329S3 from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 02.10.2019 and paid an amount of Rs.1,90,500/- vide receipt no.128 dated 10.06.2019, Rs.1,80,000/- vide receipt no.141 dated 12.07.2019 and Rs.1,30,000/- vide receipt no.145 dated 27.09.2019  in this way total amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been  paid by the complainant to Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 and the complainant has taken over the custody of the tractor from Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 vide delivery challan no.305 dated 02.10.2019. Ld. counsel for the complainant further contended that at that time of delivery of the tractor, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that they will get prepared the Registration Certificate of the said vehicle and thus not handed over the bill/invoice of the said tractor to the complainant. Thereafter despite various requests and visits of the complainant at the showroom, Opposite Parties no.1 & 2 neither issued any bill of the tractor nor handed over the RC of the tractor to the complainant. Further contended that now the dealership of Sonalika Tractor has been surrendered by Opposite Parties no.1 & 2.

9.       We have considered the rival contentions of ld. counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record. First of all, the present complaint is barred by limitation under section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, wherein it is provided as under:-

69. Limitation period. — (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen. (2)Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the Complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”

In the case in hand, the cause of action accrued to the complainant in the year, 2019, but the present complaint has been filed before this Commission 06.10.2023 i.e. after a period of approximately four years from the cause of action. Furthermore, the legal notice was also served upon the Opposite Parties on dated 04.09.2023. Moreover, the complainant has not mentioned any sufficient cause in the complaint for not filing the complaint within the prescribed period. Further, there is no any correspondence/document been placed on record by the complainant, which shows that before issuance of the legal notice i.e. 04.09.2023, the complainant ever approached the Opposite Parties for the issuance of invoice/bill and for the issuance of the RC of the vehicle in question.

10.     Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that despite making the full and final payment, the Opposite Parties failed to provide invoice/bill and RC of the vehicle in question. This plea of the complainant is short of any evidence in regard that whether any amount has also been paid for getting the RC or he paid the requisite fee for procuring the RC. The receipts placed on record from Ex.C3 to Ex.C5, pertains only to the payment made in lieu of the price of the tractor in question.  

11.     In view of the discussion above, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, but by taking lenient view, we are not passing any such orders. As such, the present complaint is hereby disposed of. However, complainant is at liberty to approach the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 for the issuance of duplicate invoice/bill of the vehicle in question so that he can apply RC of the vehicle in question accordingly. Keeping in view of the peculiar circumstance of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.