Haryana

Karnal

CC/280/2020

Chaudhary Infrastructure - Complainant(s)

Versus

CASE NEW HOLLAND CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh

10 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.280 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt 07.08.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 10.12.2024

 

Chaudhary Infrastructure, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, District Karnal, through its Partner Satish Ghanghas son of Shri Kishori Lal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Case New Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited, District Dhar, Pithampur, Madhya Pradesh (23) Plot no.157, Industrial Area-III, Tel: (91)-07292-402900/01, through its authorized signatory.
2. Karamjeet Singh Sandhu, zonal Manager North, case new Holland Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited, TDI Business Centre, Unit 26, 27, 28, 5^th floor, Sector-11 B, near North Country Mall, Chandigarh, Kharar Road, Mohali (Punjab)-140307. Mobile no.8283875313.
3. Integrated Constructive Solutions, plot no.843, Janta Industrial Estate, Sector-82, Mohali, SAS Nagar, Punjab 140306, GSTIN:03AADF19072MIZ4, through its authorized signatory.
4. Integrated Constructive Solutions, through Mr. Pravesh Kumar Chaudhary, Jt. Managing Director, plot no.183, JLPL, Janta Industrial Estate, Sector 82, Mohali SAS Nagar, Punjab, 140306 Mobile no.8288001066.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Sh. Harkirat Singh Bajwa, Adv. for the complainant.

    Sh. Dheeraj Sachdeva, Adv. for the OPs No.1 &2.

    OPs No.3 and 4 exparte, vide order Dt.04.03.2024.

                   

                     (Neeru Agarwal, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant-firm through its partner visited the OP no.2 for purchase of the SS Loader Backhoe and discussed the matter and the complainant firm had purchased one case 770 Ex Magnum SS Loader Backhoe, bearing machine no.NKJ770EMKJKH01118, chasis no.NKJ770EMKJKH01118 and Engine serial no.3045-45-735-233350 from the OP no.1, through OP no.2, on 07.07.2018 and complainant-firm had paid the total sale consideration to the OP no.1 through OP no.2 and the SS Loader Backhoe was handed over to the complainant by OP no.4, at Yamuna Nagar, at the working place of complainant i.e. at Chaudhary Stone Crusher, Nagli-32, Tehsil Bilaspur, District Yamuna Nagar but the bill of the same had not been issued to the complainant-firm and the complainant was assured that the bill will be issued soon, however, the tax invoice was issued in the name of the complainant-firm on 30.06.2018. Thereafter, complainant-firm requested the OPs no.1 and 2 to issue the original bill regarding the abovesaid machine but OPs no.1 and 2 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. When after a long period of six months, the complainant-firm pressed hard, then the OP no.2 disclosed that the bill has been sent to the complainant-firm through courier and thereafter complainant-firm got enquired from the courier agency regarding the said bill, then complainant-firm came to know that the same has been sent back to OP no.1. This information of courier company had been provided to OP no.2 and demanded the original bills. After 15 days of this communication, Mr. Kuldeep delivered the original documents to the office of complainant. On scrutiny of the documents, it was found that invoice of machine was issued on 07.07.2018 but TRC was issued on 11.07.2018, as per rules, it has to be issued on the same date. It was also found that TRC was wrongly issued to RTA, Punjab (Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar) whereas the actual address of the complainant-firm was Chaudhary Infrastructure, G.T. Road, Gharaunda, District Karnal. Due to the wrong address on the TRC, the SS Loader Backhoe of the complainant-firm could not be registered with RTA, Karnal,  in the name of firm of complainant. By seeing this mistake on TRC, Mr. Kuldeep had taken  back the original documents to get the same corrected and assured the complainant to return the same as soon as possible. Thereafter, complainant-firm through its partner, time and again approached the OP no.2 for bill of the abovesaid SS Loader Backhoe and TRC and then after 3-4 months, OP no.2 got issued the TRC from OP no.3 by making cutting on the address of the firm of complainant. Complainant requested the OPs no.1 and 2 for registration of the abovesaid SS Loader Backhoe and requested them that the complainant is ready to deposit the actual necessary expenses of registration certificate of the abovesaid SS loader Backhoe, but complainant will not pay the fine/late fee, as the same was due to the fault of the OPs, then the OPs agreed to pay the find and employees of OPs namely Shri Satish Arya and the Dealer K.G.M. Feroz Khan assured for getting issued the registration certificate of the abovesaid SS Loader Backhoe, at the address of complainant but till date, OPs have not got issued the RC of the abovesaid SS Loader Backhoe, in the name of the complainant-firm. Due to non-issuance of the RC of the abovesaid SS loader Backhoe, the SS loader Backhoe is lying idle and the complainant is facing great hardship. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to get Registration Certificate of SS Loader Backhoe issued in the name of firm of complainant from the concerned Registration Transport Authority, to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased the subject case 770 Ex Magnum SS Loader Backhoe (hereinafter referred to as ‘Machine’) for the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- from the OP no.3 not from the OP no.1 as alleged,  after having fully satisfied with its flawless testing and understanding its various operative aspects and thereafter, OP no.3 delivered such machine to the complainant after completing necessary documentations and formalities associated with it. The complainant has provided with sale invoice and other documents at the time of delivery of machine itself i.e. on 07.07.2018 and therefore the complainant was able to get Temporary Registration Certificate (hereinafter referred to as ‘TRC’) from concerned RTO authority by submitting it alongwith the application for TRC. Accordingly, all the allegations in contrary to such facts are denied in toto. OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said machine and there is no allegation as to imperfection, manufacturing defect or issues with regard to function of Machine thus, the present complainant is not related to selling of defective goods by the manufacturer. Accordingly, OP no.1 need not to put any evidence concerning to it since the complainant has not approached before this Commission for seeking any redressal in relation thereto. Now the entire allegation is related to deficiency in service as alleged, in getting registered and procuring the registration number for said machine on the part of the OPs. It is further pleaded that the onus of registration of a vehicle rest squarely with the complainant. The owner of motor vehicle may apply to registering authority to have the vehicle temporarily registered and in the present case, the application to concerned RTO of SAS Nagar, Punjab and issuance of TRC by it has  been alleged to be grievance of complainant for which the OPs no.1 and 2 cannot be held liable since it was absolute duty of the complainant to the needful. And every error therein is sole responsibility of the complainant. It is further pleaded that complaint is defective due to mis-joinder of necessary parties, since the complainant has not made the concerned RTO (s) as party to present complaint who may disclose the cause of issuance of TRC by wrong authority, as claimed by the complainant. The complainant is admittedly a firm running its business under the name and style of Chaudhary Infrastructure, through partners hence, purchasing the subject machine for commercial purpose by the purchaser i.e. Chaudhary Infrastructure, itself reveals that the complainant is beyond the ambit of consumer as per the consumer protection act, hence the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OPs no.3 and 4 filed its joint written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant deal with the OPs no.1 and 2 and the vehicle was delivered at the firm of OP no.4 being dealer of manufacturer and as per address given by the complainant, the bills and other documents including temporary registration number was handed over to the complainant on the same day but after sometime complainant contacted to the OPs and requested to change the address and on the request of complainant, OP no.4 changed the address over the documents and handed over the same on the same day. Thus, there is no fault on the part of the OPs alleged for registration of vehicle in question. However, it was the duty of the owner of vehicle for registration of vehicle in question in the concerned department, hence there is no fault on the part of the OPs as alleged. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, register of firm Ex.CW1/B, copy of builty Ex.CW1/C, copy of form no.22 Ex.CW1/D, copy of form no.22-A Ex.CW1/E, copy of temporary certificate of registration Ex.CW1/F, copy of tax invoice Ex.CW1/G, copy  of temporary certificate of registration Ex.CW1/H and closed the evidence on 14.12.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             OPs no.1 and 2 have tendered no evidence after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities. Thus, the evidence of OPs were closed by the Commission order dated 04.03.2024.

7.             On 04.03.2024 neither anyone have put into appearance on behalf of OPs no.3 and 4 nor they have tendered their evidence after availing several opportunities including three last opportunities. Hence, OPs no.3 and 4 were proceeded against exparte of the order of the Commission.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a SS Loader Backhoe, for the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- from the OP no.1. The said machine was handed over to the complainant by OP no.4, at Yamuna Nagar but the bill of the same had not been issued to the complainant-firm.  OPs mentioned the wrong address on the temporary registration certificate due to which complainant-firm could not be registered with RTA, Karnal, in the name of firm of complainant. Complainant requested the OPs no.1 and 2 for registration of the abovesaid machine. Complainant is ready to deposit the actual necessary expenses of registration certificate of the abovesaid SS loader Backhoe, but complainant will not pay the fine/late fee, as the same was due to the fault of the OPs. Due to non-issuance of the RC of the abovesaid SS loader Backhoe, the SS loader Backhoe is lying idle and the complainant is facing great hardship. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment as well as financial loss and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 and 2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant purchase the machine in question, for the sale consideration of Rs.23,00,000/- from the OP no.3 not from the OP no.1 as alleged. OP no.3 delivered such machine to the complainant after completing necessary documentations and formalities. The complainant has provided with sale invoice and other documents at the time of delivery of machine  i.e. on 07.07.2018. The application to concerned RTO of SAS Nagar, Punjab and issuance of Temporary Registration Certificate is grievance of complainant for which the OPs cannot be held liable. He further argued that complaint is not maintainable due to mis-joinder of necessary parties, i.e concerned RTO (s) who may disclose the cause of issuance of TRC by wrong authority.  He further argued that the complainant-firm purchased the machine in question for commercial purpose and earning profits, hence complainant is beyond the ambit of consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act, hence the present complaint is not maintainable and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           The OPs  have alleged that the complainant-firm does not fall under the ambit of consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

13.           Before going through the merits of the case, firstly we decide whether the complainant falls under the ambit of consumer as defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 or not?

14.           The definition of consumer is defined in Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, reproduced as under:-

(7) “Consumer” means any person who-

(i)     buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promise or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.” or

(ii)    hires or avails of  any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who(hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.

Explanation- For the purposes of this clause-

(a)    the expression “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”

(b)    the expressions “buys any goods” and “hires or avails any services” include offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing;

15.           The onus to prove that the complainant has purchased the  machine in question for earning his livelihood by means of self employment not for earning the profit  was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Neither in the whole complaint nor in evidence tendered by the complainant, has alleged that he has no other source of income except the earning from the said machine. Moreover, SS Loader Backhoe is a construction machine  with a backhoe attachment for digging and a front end loader bucket for material handling. Backhoe loader are used for a variety of tasks, including construction, small demolition, light transport of building materials, landscaping, breaking asphalt, and paving roads. Hence, it has been proved on record that complainant has purchased the machine in question for commercial purpose not for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and thus in view of section 2(7)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

16.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. Complainant is at liberty to approach before the competent court of law, if so desired. In view of the law laid down Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Versus PSG Industries Institute (1995) 3 SCC 583 the complainant would be at liberty to get the benefit of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the present complaint before this Commission while computing the period of limitation prescribed for filing such complaint. No order as to cost. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:10.12.2024                                                                     

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                  (Neeru Agarwal)              (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                       Member                              Member