CC Filed on 05.07.2007<br /> Disposed on 16.07.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 16th Day of July 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.136/2007<br /> <br /> Sri. Venkatarayappa,<br /> S/o Venkatashami,<br /> Major,<br /> R/o Poosagana Doddi,<br /> Sadali Post,<br /> Sidlaghatta Taluk,<br /> Kolar District. Complainant<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. C.R.Krishnamurthy)<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. Sri. Chandrashekar,<br /> Dealer,<br /> Vinay Enterprises,<br /> M.B.Road, Near KEB,<br /> Kolar.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri Earanna, <br /> S/o Munishamappa,<br /> Field Officer, <br /> Vinay Enterprises,<br /> Thinnakal,<br /> Chinthamani Taluk,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.136/2007<br /> <br /> 3. The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank,<br /> Dibburahalli Branch,<br /> Dibburahalli. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 & 2 By Advocate Sri. N.Ramachandraiah)<br /> (OP-3 By Advocate Sri. N.G.Vasudev Moorthy & Others)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction 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., <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> The complainant is an agriculturist. He approached OP-2 for purchase of Mahindra Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under:<br /> Part No. Description Amount<br /> M.F.1035 DI(J) 36.5 HP 3,69,369-00<br /> Engine No. <br /> Chassis No. <br /> Trailer 0,95,000-00<br /> Cultivator 0,28,250-00<br /> Disc Plough 0,32,000-00<br /> Total 5,24,619-00<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.136/2007<br /> 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-5776 and KA-40 T-5777 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 along with tractor and trailer as a prize, 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.<br /> <br /> 3. OP-3 bank appeared and filed its version. It is stated in its version that this OP granted loan of Rs.4,98,000/- after obtaining invoice and quotation for tractor and trailer and other accessories from complainant and disbursed the said loan on 03.01.2006 for purchase of tractor and trailer. 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. <br /> <br /> 4. OPs-1 and 2 appeared through counsel and OP-1 filed the version. It is contended that OP-2 had not issued proforma invoice to complainant as stated in the complaint. Further it is contended that as per<br /> <br /> CC No.136/2007<br /> quotation issued to the complainant the tractor and trailer and accessories were delivered to complainant in the presence of OP-3 under proper delivery receipt signed and accepted by complainant. They denied that old tractor and trailer were supplied after painting and that they offered any prize for purchase of tractor and trailer. They denied other allegations made against them. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant and OP-1 filed affidavits and documents. We heard the arguments. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration. <br /> 1) Whether the complainant proves that OP-1 & 2 had issued<br /> proforma invoice as alleged in para-3 of the complaint?<br /> 2) Whether complainant proves old tractor and trailer were<br /> supplied after painting them to look like new one?<br /> 3) Whether complainant proves that OPs-1 and 2 had offered <br /> Mobile and TVS Victor Bike as prize for purchase of tractor <br /> and trailer?<br /> 4) Whether complainant proves that accessories were not <br /> delivered to him?<br /> 5) What order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the evidence and the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above point are as fallows:<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.136/2007<br /> POINT No.1: The complainant has not produced the quotation referred to by him in para-3 of the complaint. The complainant does not offer any explanation for the non-production of this material document. Hence one can infer that such proforma invoice was not issued to complainant. On the other hand OP-1 and 2 have produced quotation / delivery challan & gate pass / invoice relating to the transaction of complainant. The quotation and delivery challan & gate pass produced by OPs-1 and 2, bear the signatures of complainant. The learned counsel for complainant could not give any satisfactory explanation regarding how the contents of supposed proforma invoice were mentioned in para-3 of the complaint. Therefore we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No.2: There is no convincing evidence that old tractor and trailer were delivered after painting them to look like new one. The RC produced by complainant shows that the tractor and trailer were new vehicles and they were manufactured in 2005. Therefore we hold point No.2 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No.3: Except the oral say of complainant there is nothing on record to infer that OPs-1 and 2 had offered prize for purchase of tractor and trailer. Therefore we hold point No.3 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT NO.4: The quotation and delivery note produced by OPs-1 and 2 disclose that all the accessories booked were delivered to complainant and he acknowledged the acceptance of delivery. The complaint contains incorrect facts and the complainant has not taken proper care to place the correct facts and figures. Therefore we hold point No.4 in negative. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.136/2007<br /> POINT NO.5: Hence we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 16th day of July 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />