Complaint filed on: 13-02-2023.

                                                      Disposed on: 09-10-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LLB., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., LLB. (Spl)., LADY MEMBER

CC.No.34/2023

Mr.Paramanna S/o Mahadevappa,

Kakkera, Surapura Taluk,

Yadagiri District, Karnataka State,

Presently residing at Vokkodi Road,

Heggere, Tumakuru.

……………….Complainant/s

(By Sri. Rajkumar, Advocate)

                                                V/s

1.       Sri.Gagan Shankar, Proprietor,

          Sri.Nandan, Solis Yanmar Tractors,

          Sale and Services, HBS Complex,

          Old Check post, Near Gubbi Gate,

          B.H.Road, Tumakuru. Karnataka

2.       The Manager,

          Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited,

          Sindanur Branch, Sindanur,

          Raichur District. Karnataka

……………….Opposite Party/s

(OP1 – In person)

(OP2 – S.K.Mallikarjuna, Advocate)

: O R D E R :

BY SRI.KUMARA.N., MEMBER

This complaint was filed by the complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 to direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000-00 towards mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP in giving the documents at the right time along with litigation and advocate charges.

2. .   In this case the opposite parties are, Sri.Gagan Shankar, Proprietor, Sri.Nandan, Solis Yanmar Tractors,Sale and Services, HBS Complex, Old Check post, Near Gubbi Gate,  B.H.Road, Tumakuru. and The Manager, Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Sindanur Branch, Sindanur,  Raichur District. hereinafter called OPNo.1 & OP No.2 respectively.
3.        It is the case of the complaint, that on 16-04-2021 , the complainant approached the OP No.1 and purchased  the Solis 4215 4WD  Tractor (Chassis No AXRSR103607683, Engine No 3102FLU 14C 1029950 F13 43HP), by paying Rs 630000=00 to the OP No 1, out of which Rs 210000=00 cash paid to the OP No 1 Bank account and remaining amount paid by raising loan from, the OP No2.Thereafter the OP No.1 on 25.10.2021, issued a sales certificate to the complainant, wherein it’s recorded as, financed by L & T finance, Yadhagir instead of OP No 2 i.e. The Manager, Kotak Mahendra Bank Limited, Sindanur Branch, Sindanur,  Raichur District. The complainant immediately intimated the matter to the OP No.1 and requested to correct the same as, he obtained loan with KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, Sindanur, but the OP No.1 failed to rectify the same in spite of repeated requests and personal visits.  The complainant further submitted that, due to wrong act of the OP No 1, the complainant did not get the vehicle registration in the RTO office & failed to obtain vehicle insurance resulted in non operation of tractor purchased in spite of it, the complainant somehow with struggle managed to pay the loan borrowed from the OP No 2 (every three months Rs.90,000-00 EMI)  and the complainant suffered lot due mental agony and financial loss. The OP No 1, being a tractor dealer, when the complainant purchased the tractor by paying money & raised loan from the OP No 2, it’s the duty of the OP No 1 to arrange for registration with RTO, vehicle insurance and issuing related documents to the complainant, but the OP No 1, completely failed to do so, and handed over the tractor to the complainant without registration, which leads to deficiency in service and inspite of the several personal visits, requests, by the complainant and even legal notices dated 13.01.2023 & 17.12.2022  served to the OP No 1, the OP No 1, not rectified the mistakes and even not replied to the complainant, hence this complaint.
4.        After the complaint registered, Commission notice was served to the OP No 1 & OP No 2, in-turn the OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission, but on 18.08.2023 appeared in person.  The OP No.2 appeared through counsel, but not filed the version.
5.        The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.C1 to C12.  The OP No.2 has not filed his affidavit evidence in spite of sufficient opportunities were granted. 

6. .       We have heard the arguments of complainant’s counsel and OP No.1 in person.   OP No.2 filed the written arguments, but not argued the matter orally.  The complainant also filed written arguments. 

7.       The points that would arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of  OPs?

2. Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?

8.       Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: Partly Affirmative

Point No.2: As per below order

:R E A S O N S:

Point Nos.(1) & (2):- Point No.1 to 2:

9.       The complainant counsel argued that, the OP No 1 collected Rs.6,30,000=00 from the complainant and delivered & handed over the Solis tractor on 04-06-2021, without RTO registration, vehicle insurance and not provided any proper documents to the complainant. The OP 1, on 25-10-2021, issued sales certificate to the complainant, wherein it’s recorded that, hypothecation with L & T Finance, the complainant shocked, and immediately requested the OP No 1 to rectify as, the financer or hypothecation with, KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, Sindanur, Raichur District and requested to register the vehicle with the RTO and issue a insurance certificate and other necessary documents to the complainant, but the OP No 1, inspite of several requests and personnel visits, and even legal notice dated 17-12-2022 issued not taken any initiation to rectify the faults in the sales certificate, & RTO registration, thereby the complainant suffered without using the tractor, which leads to deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice by the OP No 1. The complainant in his affidavit evidence has reiterated the averments of complaint and prayed to allow the complaint and grant relief. The complainant produced documents. ExC1, Bank Challan dated 16-04-2021, wherein the complainant paid Rs 210000=00 to the OP No 1 account, ExC2,copy of the legal notice dated 17-12-2022 issued to the OP No 1, ExC3&4, postal acknowledgment & postal receipt, ExC5, complainant notice dated 17-12-2022 to the OP No2, ExC6, postal acknowledgement, ExC7, copy of Sales certificate dated 25-10-2021, issued by the OP No1, wherein, recorded as Hypothecation to L & T finance Ltd, ExC8, copy of the tax invoice for Rs 630000=00 dated 04-06-2021, ExC9, copy of adhar of the complainant, ExC10 to 12, Photos.

10.     The OP No 1, admitted the facts that, he issued the fault Sales certificate and further submitted that, already rectified the defects in the sales certificate, and initiated steps for registering the tractor with RTO and will be arranging the vehicle insurance.  

11.     Vehicle Dealer duty, bound to make registration first, before making the delivery of the vehicle. If not leads to breach of RTO acts and rules by the dealer. The Section 39 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, insist the, necessity for registration of the vehicle and advised or recommended to have the vehicle registered by the dealer, on his trade certificate, but in this case, the OP No 1, being a tractor dealer, when the OP No 1, received the tractor cost (ExC8) of Rs 630000=00 from the complainant, it’s the duty of the OP No 1 to deliver tractor with proper documents, but the OP No 1 completely violated the RTO acts and rules by handed over the Solis tractor by issuing defected sales certificate (ExC7) and without RTO registration, vehicle insurance and not provided any proper documents to the complainant.

12.     In the above discussions, in this case, the OP No 1 delivered the un registered tractor to the complainant without vehicle insurance and encouraged & misguided the complainant to use the said tractor which is against the law, which leads to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of OP No 1, there by the complainant suffered and the complainant award to pay Rs 1000000=00 compensation, but this commission opinioned that, it’s appropriate award compensation of Rs.25000=00 and the punitive damage of Rs.5000=00, to show that, he suffered and the OP No 1,compelled the complainant to approach this commission, hence, the OP No 1 is liable to pay Rs 5000=00, towards litigation cost. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

The complaint is allowed and OP No 1 is directedSolis 4215 4WD Tractor (Chassis No AXRSR103607683, Engine No 3102FLU 14C 1029950 F13 43HP), carry cost of Rs 150=00 per day from the date of this order

The Complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed with No Cost.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.