Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that he purchased a Mahindra 215 Yubraj Tractor being Engine and Chasis no. GWRA 00063 from opposite party no. 1 and at the time of purchasing the said tractor complainant paid necessary charges for road tax, registration, insurance and other papers relating to the said tractor in cash Rs.13025/- and also paid Rs.1,01801/- for the said tractor as advance payment and the said tractor was financed by Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services ltd and the said loan amount paid by the complainant @ Rs. 5600/- monthly in 34 EMI and thereafter the complainant paid the entire EMI without any default taken financial assistance from his brother and after purchasing the said tractor complainant several times visited the office/ showroom of the Rudra Automobile Pvt. Ltd. at Mogra, Hooghly for collecting the necessary papers for which he already paid all necessary charges and the showroom/ office of the said Rudra Automobile Pvt. Ltd. only handed over the Road Tax receipt but regarding the other papers they returned back complainant without those documents in lame excuses but the complainant on regular basis visited the office/ showroom of the Rudra Automobile Pvt. Ltd. for collecting the paper because he purchased the said tractor for his livelihood as he is a poor farmer and after repayment of the entire loan amount on 14.09.2015 by the complainant Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services ltd refused to gave him clearance for non availability of the necessary papers which are not handed over by the said Rudra Automobile Pvt. Ltd. till date and for this attitude the complainant has faced a huge financial loss from the date of purchasing the said tractor and on 16.02.2019 the complainant made a representation to the opposite party no. 1 but inspite of receiving the same the opposite party remained silent and after that the complainant served legal notice through his ld. Advocate on 24.04.2019 to hand over the necessary papers for which the complainant already paid the necessary charges and after receiving the said legal notice the opposite party no. 1 communicated a letter and in response to that reply complainant again sent another notice through his Ld. Advocate on 30.05.2019 for handed over the documents but there was no fruitful result. So, having no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this instant case before this Forum.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying directions upon the opposite party no. 1 to hand over the necessary papers except the road tax receipt but other documents for which complainant already paid the charges and to pay sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- for the injury caused due to negligence and to give punitive damages as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and to give any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled to.
The opposite parties contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as leveled against them. These opposite parties submit that the complainant came to the showroom of opposite party no. 1 and purchased above stated tractor on 12.11.2012 by obtaining loan from Mahindra & Mahindra Finance which was repayable by 34 installments @ Rs. 5,600/- per month and the complainant paid Rs.13,025/- for the implementation of rotavetar and Rs. 1,01,801/- as advance against margin money, processing fees of loans, insurance and registration charges and it was the system that after delivery of tractor all relevant papers for registration should be deposited to the concerned RTO office by the dealer before RTO office and RTO office would directly dispatch registration papers of the vehicle to the address of the concerned customer and accordingly all the papers for registration had been deposited before the Chinsurah RTO office on 18.12.2012 with registration fees as revealed from the records and the registration office had registration no. WB 15B/8348 and registration certificate/ Blue book of the tractor had been thereafter sent to the complainant by RTO office through post and after receiving the legal notice from the complainant the opposite party no. 1 sent a reply vide letter dt. 13.05.2019 stating the entire fact mentioned above and also intimated that those documents have already been sent to the address of the customer through RTO office as per their office procedure and the registration of the said tractor dt. 9.01.2013 was done after submitting the required papers to the RTO office of Chinsurah. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and thus, they prayed to dismiss the instant case with costs.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
Complainant filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are taken into consideration for passing final order.
Ex-parte argument advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief or not?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of the discussions of this case.
- In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant herein is a consumer of the opposite parties.
- Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. For mental agony and other expenses which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
- The complainant in his written argument stated that he purchased one Mahindra 215 Yubraj Tractor being engine and chasis no. GWRA00063 from the Rudra Automobiles PVT. Ltd., Hospital More, G.T. Road Mogra, Hooghly on 12.11.2016. At the time of purchasing the complainant paid necessary charges for road tax, registration, insurance and other papers relating to the said tractor in cash amounting to Rs.13,025/- and also paid Rs.1,01,801/- as advance amount. Further stated that the said tractor was financed by Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. and the loan amount paid by the complainant @Rs.5600/- monthly in 34 EMIs. That after purchasing the said tractor the complainant several times visited the office of the Rudra Automobiles PVT. Ltd. at Mogra, Hooghly for collecting the necessary papers for which he already paid all necessary charges but the said opposite party only handed over the road tax receipt except other documents. Then the complainant regularly visited the opposite party showroom for collecting papers but opposite party failed to supply the same. That after repayment of entire loan amount on 14.9.2015 the financer refused to give him clearance for non availability of the necessary papers which are not handed over by the said Rudra Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter the complainant made a representation to the opposite party no.1 but opposite party remained silent. Then the complainant served legal notice and in response to that opposite party communicated a letter but no fruitful result yield. The complainant being a poor farmer is being harassed by the opposite party no. 1. The opposite party no. 1 by not handing over the necessary papers relating to the said tractor for which the complainant already paid necessary charges. The complainant further states that opposite party by filing written version mentioned a registration number of the said tractor i.e. WB 15B 8348. But they never supplied any kind of paper to the complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant filed the instant case praying directions as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.
Opposite parties in their written version stated that opposite party no. 1 is the authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and he is engaged in sales and service of Mahindra tractors after satisfaction of all the customers. In the instant case the complainant purchased a Mahindra 215 Yubaraj Tractor being engine and chasis no. GWRA 300063 from the opposite party no. 1, showroom by obtaining loan from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance on 12.11.2012. The complainant paid Rs.13,025/- to the opposite party no. 1 for the implementation of Rotavetar and Rs.1,01,801/- as advance against margin money, processing fees of loans, insurance and registration charges. The said loan obtained from Mahindra and Mahindra Finance was repayable by 34 equated installments @ Rs.5600/- per month. The complainant leveled allegations against the opposite parties regarding non supply of original documents from the side of opposite party no. 1. Opposite party states that it was the system that after delivery of tractor all relevant papers for registration should be deposited to the concerned RTO Office by the dealer and RTO office would directly dispatched registration papers of the vehicle to the address of the concerned customer. Accordingly, all papers for registration had been deposited before the Chinsurah RTO office on 18.12.2012 with registration fees as revealed from the record, the registration office had registration number WB 15B 4348 and registration certificate/ blue book of the tractor had been thereafter sent to the complainant by RTO office through post. So, the allegation of the complainant has no leg to stand. After receiving legal notice dt. 24.4.2019 the opposite party no. 1 was very much surprised and sent a reply vide letter dt. 13.5.2019 stating the entire fact and also intimated that those documents have already been sent to the address of the customer through RTO office as per their office procedure.
After hearing the argument of the complainant and perusing the documents it appears that there is no dispute in respect of purchasing a tractor from the opposite party no. 1 by taking loan from financer by this complainant. Dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant on several occasions failed to receive the papers in respect of purchase of the said tractor insurance, registration and other necessary paper excluding road tax from the opposite party. As a result, the complainant is deprived off loan clearance certificate from the financer. As the complainant could not produce the necessary documents in respect of purchase, insurance and others to the financer. Even the complainant came to know the registration number of the said tractor after a prolonged period. As a result, complainant became worried and thereafter he wrote letters, reminders and legal notice to the opposite party no. 1 for getting relevant documents in respect of purchase of the said tractor excluding road tax. Opposite party no.1 through a reply informed the complainant that the complainant ought to get such document through RTO Chinsurah. The complainant filed the instant complaint for the deficiency of service of the opposite party no. 1 for non supply of necessary documents in respect of purchase of the impugned tractor. Even after appearing the instant case the opposite party tried to clean his hand by filing written version denying the allegations leveled against them. It was the duty of the opposite party no. 1 to look after the matter seriously so that the complainant should get the relevant documents in respect of purchase of said tractor. The complainant being a farmer tried his level best to get the above noted document from the opposite party no. 1. It is the duty of the opposite party no. 1 to hand over the necessary documents to the complainant as complainant being a consumer is deprived of his consumer right from the service provider i.e. opposite parties. Even during the pendency of the complaint petition the opposite party should look into the matter so that the complainant should get the relevant documents from the RTO or other concern. The complainant rightly exhausted his right by filing this complaint petition before the CDRF, Hooghly within the territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
After a careful consideration this Commission is in the opinion that the complainant suffered at the behest of negligent on the part of the opposite party. So, the opposite party cannot evade his responsibilities in respect of non providing/ supplying the necessary documents in respect of the impugned vehicle. As such the complaint petition is deserved to be allowed with cost and compensation.
Hence,
it is
ordered
that the complaint case being no. 98 of 2019 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the opposite parties with cost of Rs. 8000/-.
The opposite parties are further directed to supply the necessary documents in respect of purchase of the impugned tractor within 45 days from the date of passing this order.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 40,000/- to this complainant within 45 days from the date of passing this order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the opposite party shall pay cost @ Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
