Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 437
Instituted on : 06.08.2021
Decided on : 23.04.2024
Rajender Singh (age 60 years) son of Sh. Nandram resident of VPO Basana Tehsil & district Rohtak(Haryana)..
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- Hooda Tractor Company, Auto Market, Hisar Road Rohtak-124001, Through it authorized dealer
- Manager Ms. CNH Industrial(India) Pvt. Ltd., Plot no.03, Udyog Kendra, Distt, GautamBudh Nagar, Greater Noida Uttar Pradesh, 201306.
- SDM, Rohtak-Registration Authority, Rohtak.
...........……Respondent/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Ms. Promila, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.H.S.Hooda, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.RavinderBangar, Advocate for the opposite party No.2.
Sh.Deepak Clerk, for opposite party No.3.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he purchased a New Holand Tractor(Colour Blue and White) bearing Regd. No.HR12AL-0752 from the opposite party No.1 bearing Model no.2020(Latest Model) vide invoice no.504 dated 10.06.2020 for an amount of Rs.705000/-. Afterpreparation of R.C. of tractor,it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the ‘New Holand’ tractor is old model i.e. 2019 whereas complainant required latest Model Tractor 2020 and all the charges have been paid to the opposite parties on the basis of latest model tractor-2020. After receiving of R.C. of the tractor complainant immediately approached to the office of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that same was mistakenly happened and required correction is to be get corrected in the R.C of the tractor at agency cost/respondent no.1. Complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times for required necessary correction in R.C. and also approached the opposite party no.3 and disclosed his problem but the opposite party no.3 refused to make any correction in R.C. of tractor. Opposite party no.1 has supplied old model of tractor in place of new model under misrepresentation. Further respondent no.2 has failed to provide proper sale-services to the complainant which caused mental tension, harassment and financial loss to the complainant. As such there is deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties many kindly be directed to get corrected necessary correction in R.C. of tractor “New Holand” i.e. Model 2020 in place of Model 2019 and in case of non correction, to pay Rs.150000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service on their part and also to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & harassment and Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that it is correct that complainant purchased a tractor of New Holland company from the opposite party But it is denied that complainant purchased a tractor of model no.2020 from the opposite party No.1. Opposite party no.1 never gave any assurance to the complainant in respect of model/manufacturing year of the said tractor as 2020. There is no mistake in the RC of the tractor so the question of correction therein does not arise. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Opposite party No.2 in its replay has submitted that tractor in question was sold by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant . There is no privitiy of contract between respondent no.,2 and complainant. Complainant has neither purchased any goods from the opposite party nor hired any services for consideration or otherwise from the opposite party. All the services have to be done on time and by the authorized dealer workshop only. All the charges of preparation of RC are paid to respondent no.1 and registration certification was executed by the concerned officials of opposite party No.1. Hence opposite party No.2 has no role to play in the registration process or R.C. correction of tractor. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. Opposite party No.3 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.3 issued the RC on the basis of bill invoice, form no.21 and 22 and which month and year of manufacturer is shown as November 2019 as per these forms R.C. has been issued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
5. Ld. counsel for complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 06.12.2021. Ld. Counsel for the complainant also tendered documents Ex.C6 to Ex.C7 and closed his additional evidence on 15.04.2024.Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and closed his evidence on 20.02.2023. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/2 and closed his evidence on 25.04.2022. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.3 made a statement that reply already filed on its behalf be read in evidence, tendered documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/10 and closed his evidence on 20.06.2022.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully as well as written submissions filed by opposite party No.2.
7. In the present case the main contention of the complainant is that he purchased a vehicle on dated 10.06.2020 and paid an amount of Rs.705000/- to the respondent no.1 for the new holand tractor. But the respondent no.1 instead of new holand tractor sold the old model i.e. 2019 model to the complainant. The complainant pleaded that he paid an amount of Rs.705000/- for the latest model of tractor 2020 but they have wrongly given old model tractor. Two documents were handed over to the complainant at the time of purchase of tractor i.e. tax invoice(Ex.C2) and insurance policy of the vehicle(Ex.C4). The complainant came to know that an old vehicle has been sold to him by the respondent no.1 when he received the registration certificate, which is placed on record as Ex.C3. The perusal of this document shows that the year of manufacturing of the vehicle is 11/2019. On the other hand respondent No.1 has pleaded that opposite party no.1 never gave any assurance to the complainant in respect of model/manufacturing year of the said tractor as 2020. There is no mistake in the RC of the tractor so the question of correction therein does not arise.
8. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. At the time of arguments respondent no.3 has made a statement and has submitted that all the particulars related to the vehicle i.e. temporary registration, form no.20, 21 & 22, date of purchase, engine no. chassis no., manufacturing year, insurance, bill invoice, registration fee are filled by the agency and all the documents related to the vehicle are got provided to the RTO after uploading the same on the portal by the agency itself. As per the complainant he received only two documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 at the time of purchase of vehicle. Ex.C2 is the tax invoice issued on dated 10.06.2020 and perusal of this document shows that the year of manufacturing is not mentioned in this document. Perusal of Ex.C4 overleaf shows that, year of manufacturing is of vehicle mentioned as 2020. The complainant was under impression that the vehicle manufactured in the year of 2020 was sold to him and he came to know after preparation of RC that old model of vehicle has been sold to the complainant. As per our opinion respondent no.1 has wrongly sold the old vehicle to the complainant by misrepresentation of facts. There is a strength in the pleading of the complainant that he paid an amount of Rs.750000/- for newHoland Tractor having model 2020. Hence there is unfair trade practice on the part of respondent no.1. We have also observed that when a vehicle manufactured in one year is sold in another year, the market value of that vehicle automatically decreases. Hence the complainant suffered a loss on account of value of vehicle beside the mental agony and harassment. As such there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to pay compensation to the complainant. As per our view complainant is entitled for a lumpsum compensation of Rs.70000/- on account of financial loss .
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only) and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.70000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only) from the date of decision till its realisation to the complainant.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
23.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
