CC Filed on 30.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 21.08.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 21st Day of August 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.217/2007<br /> Between:- <br /> <br /> Sakamma,<br /> W/o Narayanaswamy,<br /> Byraganahalli Village,<br /> Palicharulu Post,<br /> Sidlaghatta Taluk,<br /> Chikkaballapur 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 Rajanna, <br /> Field Officer, <br /> Vinay Enterprises,<br /> M.B.Road, Near KEB,<br /> Kolar. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.217/2007<br /> 3. The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank,<br /> Dibburahalli Branch,<br /> Sidlaghatta Taluk,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 By Advocate Sri. N.Ramachandraiah)<br /> (OP-2 Ex-parte)<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. She approached OP-2 for purchase of TAFE and Massey Fergusson Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under:<br /> Part No. Description Amount<br /> 3,69,369-00<br /> Engine No. RDT 3520 <br /> Chassis No. RDT 3520 <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 /> CC No.217/2007<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-5270 and KA-40 T-5271 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 after obtaining invoice and quotation for tractor and trailer and other accessories from complainant and disbursed the said loan 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. OP-1 appeared through counsel and 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 quotation <br /> <br /> CC No.217/2007<br /> 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. He denied that old tractor and trailer were supplied after painting and that he offered any prize for purchase of tractor and trailer. He denied other allegations made against him. Therefore he prayed for dismissal of complaint. OP-2 remained absent though served with notice. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has not led any evidence inspite of repeated opportunities. Further time prayed on behalf of complainant to lead evidence was refused on 16.07.2008. The counsel for OPs submitted that they have no evidence as complainant has not led any evidence. OP-1 filed the copies of relevant documents. We heard the learned counsel for OPs. The complainant remained absent on the date of argument also.<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 that 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 /> CC No.217/2007<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 has produced quotation dated 20.10.2005 and delivery challan & gate pass dated 03.12.2005 and invoice relating to the transaction of complainant. The quotation and delivery challan cum gate pass produced by OP-1, bear the signatures (LTM) 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. The complainant has also not led any evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint. Therefore we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No.2: There is no convincing material 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 OP-1 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 /> CC No.217/2007<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 21st day of August 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />