Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant after incurring loan from OP No.2 purchased a tractor from OP No.1. Complainant alleged inter alia that during the sale of the tractor, OP No.1 has received Rs.30,000/- to prepare the documents for registration, fitness, insurance and all other papers. It is alleged by the complainant that the documents were not handed over by OP No.1 for quite long time for which the vehicle remained unutilized. Complainant alleged that OP No.1 is in deficiency of service for not giving the documents. On 10.11.2011 complainant asked to return the documents and subsequently also for several times, but OP No.1 did not handover the documents. Since OP No.1 did not take steps for running the tractor, the complainant filed the complaint.
4. OP Nos. 1 and 3 were set ex parte.
5. OP No.2 filed written version stating that they have extended loan amount to the complainant and the complainant did not pay the loan amount for which they sent notice for seizure of the tractor. An amount of Rs.11,31,060/- was outstanding. When the payment could not be made further, they enquired and found that the complainant is going without papers. In this matter the real allegation is against OP No.1 and OP No.2 has no responsibility.
6. After hearing both parties, the learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-
“xxx xxx xxx
(1) Opposite party No.3 (three) is exonerated from the charges as there is no defect with the product lies but they are directed to have some check on the roles played at ground level and insist and force their dealers to act fair and complete the sales procedure at the time of purchase/sales so consumers do not face hurdles.
(2) Opposite party No.1 (one) is directed to handover the sales paper of purchase of tractor Dt.06/08/2007 Model 3549, Chassis No. 09053502087 and Engine No.P 335 – 01635 and will do the needful to complete the registration procedure and handover the Registration Certificate, Fitness certificate, insurance papers within two months of this order without demanding further money for this purpose from this complainants or ward provide the sales letter and other purchase related papers insurance papers to the complainant within thirty days along with Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only and complainant will prepare the RTO registration etc. himself using the purchase papers.
(3) Opposite party No. 2 (two) can realize the loan as following order.
Opposite party No.2 (two) will calculate the outstanding amount for the last date of completion of two months of this order and to inform the complainants and opposite party No.1(one) and will collect 50% of the amount each from opposite party No.1(one) and complainants. After completion of two months of order, opposite party No.2(two) will start collecting the 50% of amount calculated from complainants and collect the other 50% from opposite party No.1 (one) making such arrangement in the loan account so the amount outstanding happens to be 50% of total outstanding till date will be sum outstanding on 1st day after completion of two months of this order.
(4) Opposite party No.1(one) further will pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) only as compensation to the complainants within two months of the order which includes litigation expenses, failing which he will pay @ 12% interest per annum till the final realization of compensation amount only till final realization.”
7. Learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party No.2 submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by passing the impugned order directing OP No.2 to calculate the outstanding amount and collect 50% of the cash from OP No.1 and complainant and again after two months to start collecting 50% amount from OP No.1 is without any evidence on record. He submitted that the finding of the learned District Forum never shows any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2/appellant, yet fixed responsibility with OP No.2. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
8. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
9. It is the duty of the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
10. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the tractor from OP No.1 by incurring loan from OP No.2. It is also admitted fact that OP No.1 has not issued the documents. In such case, there is no any fault lies with OP No.2 who is a banker. When there is an agreement between the complainant and OP No.2 any liability will be saddled with the complainant. Learned District Forum also has not discussed about deficiency of service on the part of OP No.2. In such circumstances, the impugned order of the learned District Forum fixing the responsibility on OP No.2 is fallacious and untenable. Hence, this Commission is of the view that the impugned order against OP No.2 is to be set aside and is set aside. 11. The appeal stands allowed against the appellant. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
