BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.138/2008 Order dated this the 27th day of May 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.U.B.Sathyanarayana S/o Late M.Basavegowda, C/o Ramaiah H.K.V.College, H.K.V.Nagara, Channegowdana Doddi, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.M.K.Jagadeesha., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Kavery Tractors, Authorised Dealers Escorts Power, Trac No.820/ M.C.Road, Babu Service Station Road, Sugar Factory Circle, Mandya. 2. M/s Escorts Limited, No.43, Basaveshwara HBCS, 2nd Stage, Chandra Layout, Vijayanagara, Bangalore 560 040. (By Sri.Umesh Bevukal., Advocate for O.P.1 & Sri.D.G.Niranjanamurthy., Advocate for O.P.2) Date of complaint 27.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 21.01.2009 Date of order 27.05.2009 Total Period 5 Months 6 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.4,586/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties claiming refund of Rs.4,586/- being excess amount collected and loss of Rs.67,200/- and compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant has purchased the tractor manufactured by 2nd Opposite party from 1st Opposite party at Mandya and using the same by getting repairs time to time and using the same for cultivating his lands and to transport agricultural products. On 01.09.2007 at 1.30 p.m. at Maddur Town, the said tractor met with an accident and in that connection, he lodged a complaint before Maddur Police Station in C.Mis.No.421/07 and left the tractor with 1st Opposite party who is the Authorised Agent of 2nd Opposite party on 06.09.2007 for repairs and 1st Opposite party checked the tractor parts and gave a quotation for Rs.48,000/- for repairs and assured to return within 15 days by effecting repairs. But, the 1st Opposite party did not return the tractor within 15 days, instead he was pressurising to pay the amount and accordingly, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/- on 08.09.2007, Rs.10,000/- on 14.09.2007, Rs.8,000/- on 25.09.2007, Rs.5,000/- on 03.10.2007, Rs.10,000/- on 06.10.2007, Rs.5,000/- on 16.10.2007 and totally the complainant has paid totaling Rs.43,000/-. Then, the 1st Opposite party delivered the tractor on 16.11.2007 giving the bill for Rs.43,786/- and receiving balance of Rs.786/-. When the complainant took possession of the tractor, he came to know that the front support bed fixed to the tractor was not of the product manufactured by 2nd Opposite party Company, but it is a local one and reported the same to 1st Opposite party and 1st Opposite party gave evasive answer. The complainant had obtained the quotation from Jatti Motors, also authorized dealer of 2nd Opposite party and he has given quotation for Rs.39,290/- in addition to 10% rebate. Therefore, the 1st Opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.4,586/-. Further, the complainant was earning Rs.1,200/- per day, but due to delivery of the tractor after 56 days, there was delay in delivery and the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.67,200/- and so 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Then, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 04.01.2008 and Opposite parties have sent evasive reply. Hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. Notices were served on the Opposite parties. 1st Opposite party has filed version, contending that the complainant has left the tractor on 06.09.2007 for carrying out the repairs to the tractor due to the accident and complainant requested the 1st Opposite party to carry out the repairs only after inspection by insurance company. So, in order to claim damages from the insurance company the complainant obtained estimate cost of spare parts excluding labour charges. The Officer of the insurance company inspected the tractor on 11.09.2007 and at that time, the complainant requested the 1st Opposite party to repair the vehicle after instructions given by the insurance officer regarding the damage of vehicle. So, after one week with consent of the complainant, 1st Opposite party commenced the repair works. The cost of the spare parts is around Rs.48,200/- excluding service / labour charges of Rs.5,000/-. The complainant requested that has no amount to pay and he will arrange the amount later through insurance company. The 1st Opposite party after repair of the said tractor at the cost of Rs.53,200/- bring the cost of spare parts as well as service cost, the 1st Opposite party delivered the said tractor on 06.10.2007 in running condition and raised invoices No.3611, 3612, 3613, 3614 and 3617 towards the cost of spare parts and the complainant made payment of Rs.41,532/- thereby leaving balance amount of Rs.11,668/- till today. The complainant approached the 1st Opposite party saying that he lost the bills which were issued by the Opposite party as such, requested to issue fresh bills in order to claim the same with insurance company. At the repeated request made by the complainant, the 1st Opposite party issued the fresh bill, since there is no provision to issue duplicate bills in order to retain the good customer and with the good faith. At that time, the complainant added other spare parts bills to the fresh bills. The 1st Opposite party has denied the other averments in the complaint about fixing local spare parts and collecting excess amount and delay in delivery and loss of income. 4. The 2nd Opposite party has filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of 2nd Opposite party as it is a reputed company in manufacturing very good parts of the tractor and supplying the same to the dealers. The complainant only with an intention to claim the compensation has made allegation of supplying defective spare parts. The rates charged by the dealer were as per the price list. There is no privity of contract between the 2nd Opposite party and complainant and so complaint is not maintainable against the 2nd Opposite party at all and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 5. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.20. On behalf of the 1st Opposite party, the Proprietor is examined and has produced Ex.R.1 to R.4. On behalf of the 2nd Opposite party Authorised person has filed affidavit with a document, but did not appear for cross-examination, though, interrogatories are filed. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the records. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant proves that the 1st Opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.4,586/- towards the cost of spare parts? 2. Whether the complainant proves that there was delay in delivery of the repaired tractor and he has sustained loss of Rs.67,200/-? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is the owner of the tractor manufactured by 2nd Opposite party and sold by 1st Opposite party being a Authorised Dealer. The said vehicle met with an accident and on 06.09.2007, the tractor was left with 1st Opposite party for repairs and 1st Opposite party issued the estimate of the damaged parts as per Ex.C.1 for Rs.48,200/-. It is an admitted fact that 1st Opposite party has issued the bills marked as Ex.C.2 to C.7 totally for Rs.43,786/- on 16.11.2007, apart from the bill for Rs.5,000/- towards the labour and service charges as per Ex.C.7. As per the evidence of the complainant, he has also obtained estimate as per Ex.C.8 from Jatti Motors, the Authorised Dealer of 2nd Opposite party and according to the evidence of the complainant for seven parts, the 1st Opposite party has charged excess amount of Rs.4,586/-, but the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have denied the same. The 2nd Opposite party has submitted the price revision list at the time of filing the affidavit as evidence, but 2nd Opposite party did not appear for answering the interrogatories with regard to the price revision list and it is not established how this price list is obtained and produced. Admittedly, the Jatti Motors is also a distributor of the 2nd Opposite party Company for tractor spare parts. It cannot be said that Jatti Motors in collusion with the complainant has issued a false quotation. The perusal of the bills Ex.C.2 to C.6 reveals that the Opposite party has charged more amount than charged by Jatti Motors for the same products of the escorts company and the parts for which excess amount is charged when Ex.C.8 is compared with Ex.C.2 to C.6 and the evidence discloses that for seven parts the excess amount is charged. So, it is proved by the complainant that 1st Opposite party has charged for the spare parts excess amount of Rs.4,586/-. 10. The complainant has alleged and deposed that 1st Opposite party had assured to deliver back the tractor after repairs within 15 days and the complainant left the vehicle for repairs on 06.09.2007 at the time of obtaining the quotation and according to the complainant, 1st Opposite party delayed for delivery of the tractor and on 16.11.2007, 1st Opposite party delivered back the tractor by issuing bills of Rs.43,786/-, collecting balance of Rs.786/-, since he had paid Rs.43,000/- earlier. But the contention of the 1st Opposite party is that the tractor was delivered on 06.10.2007 and the bills were issued as per Ex.R.3 and he has signed in the job card and the complainant paid only Rs.41,532/-, though the total amount is Rs.53,200/- leaving balance of Rs.11,668/-. Further, the evidence of the 1st Opposite party is that the complainant approached stating that he lost the original bills and to issue fresh bills in order to claim insurance amount and at the request of the complainant, Opposite party issued other bills marked as Ex.C.2 to C.6 and at that time, the earlier bills Ex.R.3 were cancelled and the complainant has put the signature and at that time, the complainant has also purchased two spare parts included in the fresh bills. The 1st Opposite party has produced Ex.R.2 the job card, under which it is clear that on 06.09.2007, the tractor was received for repairs and delivered on 06.10.2007 and the complainant has put signature and later it is struck off. According to the evidence of 1st Opposite party, when the complainant came to the office on 16.11.2007, he obtained the job card from the Manager to see it and at that time, the complainant has struck off the signature in the job card, but there is no question put to the complainant as to why and at what circumstances the signature of the complainant is struck off in the job card, but it is suggested to the 1st Opposite party that on 06.10.2007 when he came to have the tractor and tested, it was not properly repaired and the complainant asked to immediate repairs properly and 1st Opposite party has agreed for the same and at that time, the earlier bills were cancelled assuring to issue fresh bills after repairs. Further, the 1st Opposite party had deposed that after taking possession of the tractor on 06.10.2007 after 4 days, the complainant came and obtained the job card from the Manager and struck off his signature, but the Manager is not examined to prove the same. Further, it is doubt to believe that on 06.10.2007, the 1st Opposite party delivered back the tractor after repairs, because according to the 1st Opposite party on 06.10.2007, the complainant made payment of Rs.41,532/- obtaining the bills Ex.R.3 leaving balance amount of Rs.11,668/-, but as per the slips issued which are not disputed, as per the Ex.C.10, 1st Opposite party has collected Rs.5,000/-, as per Ex.C.7 on 14.09.2007 Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000/- on 20.05.2007 as per Ex.C.12, Rs.5,000/- on 03./10.2007 as per Ex.C.13, Rs.10,000/- on 06.10.2007 as per Ex.C.14. So, the total amount paid up to 06.10.2007 is Rs.38,000/- only. So, the evidence of 1st Opposite party that on 06.10.2007, the complainant paid Rs.41,532/- cannot be accepted. Further, as per Ex.C.15 on 16.10.2007, the complainant has paid Rs.5,000/-. For what purpose this five thousand was collected is not explained. It is not this case, Rs.5,000/- was collected towards the balance of Rs.41,000/- or towards the service charges and therefore, the 1st Opposite party has caused delay in delivering the tractor after repairs and it is established that only on 16.11.2007, the tractor is delivered by repairing the tractor by re-fixing the other spare parts and issued the bills Ex.C.2 to C.7 and not on 06.10.2007. 11. The complainant has sought excess amount of Rs.4,586/-. It is established under point no.1 that the 1st Opposite party has collected excess amount of Rs.4,586/- towards the cost of spare parts. The case of the Opposite party that the complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs.11,668/- cannot be believed, because without payment of the amount a dealer will not issue any receipt. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.4,586/-. 12. The complainant has sought for damages at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per day for delay in delivery for the tractor after repairs. Though, delay is established, the evidence clearly proves that the complainant agreed for repairs after inspection of the vehicle by the insurance authorities and the complainant has paid the amount in installments and hence, it is natural to cause the delay in delivery of the tractor. Further, the evidence of the complainant about loss of the income of Rs.1,200/- per day cannot be believed, because it is admitted in the pleading that the complainant used the tractor for ploughing his lands and transport the agricultural products and it is not his evidence that he was using the tractor for commercial purpose i.e., for hire to others and in that case it comes under the commercial purpose. Therefore, there is no evidence that he has sustained loss of Rs.67,200/- due to late delivery of the tractor by the 1st Opposite party. Since, it is established that there is no delay by 1st Opposite party to give back the tractor, the complainant is not entitled to the loss of income, but the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,000/- for mental agony for deficiency in service by 1st Opposite party and deficiency in service against 2nd Opposite party is not established at all. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing 1st Opposite party to refund Rs.4,586/- and to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 27th day of May 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
