Complainant Ranjeet Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.38,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the day of payment till actual realization; to handover R.C. of the tractor in question. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is an agriculturist by profession. He for the purpose of cultivation of his land purchased tractor Mahindra 575 DI on 25.11.2018 from the opposite party. In the retail invoice dated 26.11.2015 the price of the tractor is shown as Rs.5,90,000/- and the opposite party agreed to receive Rs.5,52,000/- as total price of the tractor in question. The opposite party further agreed to return the excess amount of Rs.38,000/- after registration of tractor in question from the concerned DTO office. For the purchase of tractor, he borrowed loan from Punjab Gramin Bank, therefore, he handed over demand draft No.266154 dated 20.11.2015 of Rs.5,90,000/- of Punjab Gramin Bank to the opposite party. The opposite party has charged Rs.10,000/- as insurance premium of the tractor and Rs.10,000/- for preparing R.C. of the tractor from him, in addition to Rs.5,90,000/- as the opposite party had assured to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/- in cash to him and to charge Rs.5,52,000/- as price of the tractor. His brother namely Gurbachan Singh son of Kartar Singh has also purchased similar tractor from the opposite party worth of Rs.5,52,000/-, bill of which has been issued in the name of Sulakhan Singh son of Kulwant Singh in which price of tractor has been shown as Rs.5,80,000/-, whereas, the opposite party has charged Rs.5,52,000/- from him and the price of the same tractor. He has next pleaded that on demand of R.C., the opposite party handed over R.C. to him bearing Registration No.PB-06-AF-3834 bearing Engine and Chassis Number of the Tractor as per bill have been mentioned in the said R.C. but on inquiry it was found that this R.C. pertains to one Scooty. He informed the opposite party about this but the opposite party has not issued fresh RC of the Tractor, despite the fact that he has paid Rs.10,000/- to the opposite party for preparation of RC. This act on the part of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite party with sole motive to pressurize him so that he may keep mum a legal notice dated 9.6.2018 through its counsel served upon the him, raised demand of Rs.1,08,500/- from him. He has not executed any document in favour of the opposite party for return of alleged amount of Rs.1,08,500/-him. The opposite party might have prepared some forged and fabricated document with sole motive to extract more money from him due to reasons mentioned above. The notice is duly replied by him. He has further alleged that not only this, the tractor delivered by the opposite party to him was also defective one and was returned to the opposite party by some other customer who had plied the said tractor in his fields and after finding some defects returned the same to the opposite party. He has spent Rs.25,000/- for the repairs of the tractor and this amount has not been reimbursed to him by the opposite party despite repeated requests. The opposite party is liable for preparation and handing over of the RC of the tractor to him. The act of the opposite party of charging excess amount, not providing proper documents and handing over defective tractor amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice issued to the opposite party had been received back with the report of ‘Refusal’ Refusal report of service conveys that opposite party has been served but he was intentionally evading the service of the notice. Case called several times, but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party. Hence, opposite party was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24.12.2018.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith photocopy of document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C.7.
5. Written arguments filed on behalf of complainant.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; written arguments filed by complainant and oral arguments advanced by their respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. In the present complaint as detailed above the complainant purchased a tractor from opposite party by paying Rs.5,90,000/- on 26.11.2015 as per retail invoice at Ex.C-1 and copy of cheque at Ex.C-2. The complainant also placed on record at Ex.C-3 copy of another delivery challan of tractor purchased by Sh.Sulakhan Singh in which the amount has been shown as Rs.5,80,000/-. It has further been alleged by the complainant that it was committed by opposite party to charge Rs.5,52,000/- from him and to refund Rs.38,000/- after delivery of R.C. It has also been claimed that the opposite party has charged the same amount of Rs.5,52,000/- from the other customers. But the complainant has neither placed on record any document/evidence regarding charging of Rs.5,52,000/- from the other consumers nor any such evidence regarding commitment given by the opposite party regarding refund of Rs.38,000/-. It can also not be ascertained that whether both the tractors are of the same make and specifications or not.
Another astonishing fact has been highlighted by the complainant that opposite party has handed over him one fake R.C. with No.PB06AF3834, which was later on found to be of scooter and placed a copy of RTI information from RTA,Gurdaspur which is Ex.C-7. Complainant further pleaded that the said R.C. was taken back by the opposite party and actual R.C. has not been handed over to him.
Further complainant placed a copy of legal notice issued by opposite party which is Ex.C-5 demanding an additional amount of Rs.1,08,000/- without any details which was duly replied by him as per Ex.C-6.
8. From the evidential part, it is proved that the complainant time and again approached opposite party for removal of his grievance but was unnecessarily harassed by opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party did not bother to appear in the Commission and prefer to proceed exparte vide order dated 24.12.2018 and also failed to satisfy the complainant and also did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either opposite party admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed.
9. From the above details and facts of the case, we find that it is fact that the complainant purchased a tractor from opposite party by paying Rs.5,90,000/-.
As there is no evidence available on record regarding refund of Rs.38,000/- by opposite party it cannot be considered in the absence of such cogent evidence.
10. As per contents of the complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the handing over of the fake R.C. to the complainant and issue of notice demanding additional amount without any reasons amounts to be unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.
Non delivery of actual R.C. after sale of the said product is also considered to be deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. So opposite party deserve to be penalized for his act of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, considering facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to hand over the R.C. of the said tractor, besides this, opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- for harassment on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice alongwith Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the receipt of copy of the orders failing which it will attract 6% interest per annum from the date of orders till its realization.
12. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
13. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned to the record room.
(Kiranjit Kaur Arora)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
April 05, 2023 Member
*MK*
