Date of filing: | 22.03.2021 |
Date of disposal: | 06.09.2023 |
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 06.09.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 317/2021 & 318/2021
M/s. Escorts Limited, A company incorporated and Registered under Companies Act 1956, Having its Corporate Office at: 15/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad-Pincode:121003, State of Haryana, Rep. by its Manager-Legal & Authorised Signatory, Mr. Abhijeet Negi. (Advocate – Sri.Ganesh Bhat.Y.H) | …..Appellant in Appeal Nos.317 & 318 of 2021. |
V/s |
1) Gangadhara K.H, Aged About 31 years, S/o. Hanumantha Naik, Residing at Kengatte (V), Vaderahathur, Chikadadakatte Post, Govinakovi Hobli, Honnali Taluk,Davanagere District-577006. (Advocate – Sri.Sharan.B.Tadahal) | …..Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.317/2021. |
1) Jagadish Naika, Aged About 37 years, Son of Harishchandra Naik, Residing at Bullapura (V), Holalur Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, Shivamogga District-577216. (Advocate – Sri.Sharan.B.Tadahal) | …..Respondent No.1 in Appeal No.318/2021. |
2) The Manager, Arun Motors, Shankar Mutt Circle, B.H. Road, Shivamogga, Shivamogga-577201. | …..Respondent No.2 in Appeal Nos.317 & 318 of 2021. |
COMMON ORDER
BY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The opposite party No.2 – M/s. Escorts Limited has filed these Appeals under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated: 05.02.2021 passed in C.C. Nos.93/2019 & 94/2019 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shivamogga.
02. The parties to these Appeals will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.
03. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for Appellant in both Appeals.
04. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint Nos.93/2019 & 94/2019 on 05.02.2021 and directed the Opposite parties jointly or severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant in each case within 06 weeks from the receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at 10% per annum till realization.
05. Aggrieved by these orders, the opposite party No.2 – M/s. Escorts Limited had filed these Appeals.
06. Perused the impugned orders and the grounds urged in the Appeals.
07. The brief facts of the Appeals are that, there is no legal entity by name “Escort Power Tractor Company” as claimed by the complainant. The tractor under the brand name “Farmtrac Champion” is manufactured by opposite party No.2 - Escorts Limited. Though the said fact was brought to the notice of the complainants before the commission below itself, they failed to amend the same in the cause title of the consumer complaints. The Opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors is an authorized dealer involved in sale of tractors.
08. In Appeal No.317/2021 the complainant after obtaining the quotations from opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors with an intention to purchase a tractor had availed loan from the Karnataka Bank Limited, Nyamathi Branch. Thereafter a D.D. for Rs.6,62,466/- dated: 16.08.2018 was issued by the said bank to opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors. On receipt of the same opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors raised the invoice No.18/ES/60, dated: 18.08.2018 and challan No.18/ES/52, dated: 17.08.2018 for Rs.6,62,467/- and had delivered the tractor to complainant. Both in the invoice and challan, complainant was notified to check/inspect the tractor and documents related thereto before accepting the delivery. After inspection the complainant knowing fully well that, the tractor sold to him is manufactured in the month of January-2017 and the complainant had taken delivery of the same on 18.08.2018 and thereafter he got registration with the concerned RTO. In the said tractor sale transaction, the opposite party No.1 – Aurn Motors had offered and complainant had availed (1) cash discount of Rs.80,005/-, (2) extra fittings of Rs.16,500/-, (3) additional cash discount of Rs.10,000/-, (4) accessories worth of Rs.21,299/-, totaling to Rs.1,27,799/-. The opposite parties have never misrepresented as to the month of manufacture of the tractor nor was complainant forced to take delivery of the same. The above facts were came to the knowledge of the complainant only after getting registration certificate from the RTO are totally false, concocted and fabricated story and from 18.08.2018 complainant was utilizing the said tractor without any issues. The grounds urged by the Appellant are that, the District commission has failed to record the preliminary objections. The complainant knowing full well that, the tractor sold to him is manufactured in the month of January-2017 the complainant had taken delivery of the same on 18.08.2018 and since from he was using the same for agriculture purpose and the allegations raised by him that, he came to know about the date of manufacture only after getting registration certificate from RTO are totally false. The District Commission has erred in coming to the conclusion that, the opposite parties have sold the tractor by wrong representation as to the date of manufacture is concerned. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.2.
09. In Appeal No.318/2021 the complainant after obtaining the quotations from opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors with an intention to purchase a tractor and power trailer had availed loan from the Canara Bank, Seshadripuram Branch, Shivamogga. Thereafter a sum of Rs.8,62,000/- was transferred by the said bank to opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors vide UTR No.CNRBR52018070500728429, dated: 05.07.2018 which is inclusive of the sale price of Farmtrac Champion Tractor but also the sale price of Power Trailer. On receipt of the same opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors raised the invoice No.18/ES/54, dated: 05.07.2018 for Rs.6,92,000/- and had delivered the tractor to complainant. Subsequently complainant collected Rs.1,70,000/- being the cost of trailer from opposite party No.1 vide cheque bearing No.486618, dated: 09.07.2018 drawn on State Bank of India and thus complainant had cheated the Canara Bank. The complainant is notified and directed to check/inspect the tractor and documents before accepting the delivery. After inspection on 16.08.2018 complainant took delivery of the said tractor and got registered with the RTO and from 16.08.2018 complainant was utilizing the said tractor in his agricultural activities without any issues. In the said Tractor sale transaction opposite party No.1-Arun Motors had offered and complainant had availed (1) cash discount of Rs.60,000/-, (2) cost of insurance cover of Rs.14,293/-, (3) additional cash discount of Rs.11,707/-, (4) accessories worth of Rs.15,897/-, totaling to Rs.1,02,007/-. After lapse of one year complainant got issued notice dated: 30.07.2019 claiming that, he had been sold with an old model tractor and put to monetary loss and thereafter he had filed frivolous consumer complaint. The grounds urged by the Appellant are that, the impugned order fails to record the preliminary objections. There is no privity of contract between the Appellant and the complainant. Neither in the complaint nor in the deposition complainant deposed that, opposite parties have sold an old tractor to the complainant. The only allegation is that, on 05.07.2018 he had been sold with the tractor manufactured in the month of July-2017.
10. The Learned counsel for Respondent No.1/complainant had argued that, complainants have purchased the tractors in the year 2018, but later when they received R.C. of the said vehicles they came to know that, the vehicles were manufactured in the year 2017 and based on that, they have filed consumer complaints and that has been allowed. Now original manufacturer is before the commission on these Appeals stating that, there is no liability cast on them. The complainants have given actual quotations to the opposite party No.1 in the year 2018 which does not relates to old vehicles. Complainants had initially obtained the quotations in the year 2017 as Bank process was delayed, in 2018 vehicles were delivered to complainants after the loan amount was transferred to the dealer. The complainants are also entitled for certain compensation because they have given old vehicles. The District Commission has passed liability on both opposite parties. However the learned counsel for Appellants has failed to adduce arguments in-spite of grant of sufficient opportunity, but any how the Appellants/opposite party No.2 – M/s. Escorts Limited being manufacturers of the alleged vehicles are not liable for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party No.1 – Arun motors.
11. In view of the above submission, we are of the opinion that, the District Commission has erred in fixing the liability jointly or severally on behalf of both the opposite parties. The Appellants/opposite party No.2 – M/s. Escorts Limited being manufacturer of the vehicle does not play any role in respect of delivery of 2017 old model vehicles instead of delivering 2018 new model vehicles. Hence to that extent the impugned order has to be modified. Accordingly the impugned order passed by the District Commission shall completely binds on opposite party No.1 – Arun Motors only and not on Appellants/opposite party No.2 – M/s. Escorts Limited. Hence the Appeal Nos.317 & 318 of 2021 stands disposed off with no order as to costs.
12. The statutory deposit made by the Appellants in both the Appeals shall be refunded to the Appellants herein after verifying the necessary I.D. proof.
13. The original order of this Appeal shall be kept in A.No.317/2021 and a certified copy thereof shall be kept in A.No.318/2021.
14. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the Appeals.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP*
