Haryana

StateCommission

A/998/2015

BHARAT BHUSHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

KISHAN TRACTORS - Opp.Party(s)

SUNITA R.ARYA

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       998 of 2015

Date of Institution:       20.11.2015

Date of Decision :        21.04.2016

 

Shri Bharat Bhushan s/o Sh. Sudarshan Dev, Resident of House No.277, 27 Ft. Road, New Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad.

                                      Appellant/Complainant

Versus

 

1.      M/s Kishan Tractors, Bye Pass Road, Palwal-121002, through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager/Principal Officer.

2.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services, Limited, HUDA Market, Sector-17, Faridabad, through its Branch Manager/authorised signatory.

3.      M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, 2^nd Floor, Sadhna House, Worli, Mumbai-400018, through its Managing Director/Directors.

                                      Respondents/Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Shri Suresh Chand, Advocate for appellant.

Shri Johan Kumar, proxy counsel for respondent No.1.

Shri S.C. Thatai, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3.

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

This appeal has been preferred against the order dated October 9^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (for short ‘the District Forum’) whereby complaint bearing No.477 of 2010 filed by Bharat Bhushan-Complainant (appellant herein), was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the present case as set up by the appellant are that he purchased Swaraj Tractor bearing Engine No.391340/KG002966 for Rs.3,95,000/- from M/s Kissan Tractors-respondent No.1. The tractor was financed with M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Limited, Faridabad-respondent No.2. He paid Rs.1,09,625/- to the respondent-opposite party No.2 which included the charges of Registration Certificate of the tractor. The respondents had assured that the Registration Certificate would be handed over to the appellant within ten days but the same was not supplied and due to that reason the tractor could not be insured with the Insurance Company after the date the Insurance Policy had expired. The appellant sought compensation of Rs.5.00 lacs.

3.      The respondent No.1 in its reply admitted that the tractor in question was sold to the appellant. However, it was denied that the appellant was assured that the R.C. would be got prepared by the respondents.

4.      The respondents No.2 and 3 did not contest the complaint despite service and they were proceeded exparte.

5.      On appraisal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that due to non-supply of the R.C. by the respondents despite having received the amount of Rs.1,09,625/-, the appellant could not put his tractor into use and is thus entitled to compensation. In support reliance was placed upon Kohinoor Auto Agencies versus Sheikh Mastan Basha, II(2007) CPJ 200 (NC) and Sarwan Singh versus Bedi Auto Mobiles & anr. II(2013) CPJ 130 (H.P.).

 7.     It is the case of the appellant that he had paid Rs.1,09,625/- to the respondent No.2 which included the Registration Certificate charges. The appellant has not been able to produce any receipt of having paid the above said amount to the respondents towards registration charges. There is nothing on the record to suggest that any assurance was given by the respondents to the appellant that the tractor would be got registered by them with the Registering Authority. The respondents No.2 and 3 are financier. In paragraph No.3 of the complaint it has been specifically stated by the appellant that he got the tractor financed from the respondent No.2 (M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services, Limited) and paid Rs.1,09,625/- including documents charges of Registration Certificate Book and the appellant availed loan of Rs.3.00 lacs. The respondent No.2 did not contest the complaint. Reply was filed by the respondent No.1 who is a dealer. The respondent No.1 has specifically denied any payment being made to dealer for the purpose of any documentation, loan etc. The appellant has not placed on the record any receipt for payment of Rs.1,09,625/-. The appellant has referred to the interim order dated 05.07.2013 vide which application for amendment was decided,  where there is a reference of admission by the respondent No.1 of R.C. having been prepared and handed over to the appellant. The appellant is trying to misread the said observation.

8.      We have seen the reply to the application for amendment of complaint filed by the respondent No.1. It is own case of the appellant that he had paid the amount of Rs.1,09,625/- to the respondent No.2.  In the admission by respondent No.1-dealer that R.C. was prepared and handed over to the appellant, cannot be treated as admission by any of the respondents of having paid the amount for preparation of R.C. besides the respondent No.1 has specifically denied the receipt of the amount for preparation of R.C.

9.      It is the duty of the purchaser of the vehicle to get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority. The purchaser has to apply for getting the R.C. prepared by following the procedure prescribed under the Motor Vehicle Act. Mere submission of the appellant that he had paid some amount cannot be accepted as gospel truth.

10.    The judgments relied upon by the appellant are not applicable. In Kohinoor Auto Agencies’ case (Supra), the opposite party had undertaken to get the vehicle registered within two months but failed to do so.

11.    In Sarwan Singh’s case (Supra), on the basis of documents furnished by the dealer, the vehicle could not be registered, therefore, compensation was allowed. The case in hand is on different footings as the appellant has not been able to prove that any amount was paid by him to the respondents to get the R.C. prepared or that any assurance was given by the respondents to him in this regard. In this view of the matter, this Commission does not find any illegality in the order of the District Forum while dismissing the complaint.

12.    Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.

 

Announced 21.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL