DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 05 of 01.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 30-04-2008<br /> <br /> Kulwinder Singh S/o Gurjant Singh R/o Datewas Tehsil Budhlala District Mansa. ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1.Modern Tractors/Motors Limited, Malout through its Prop.<br /> 2.Modern Tractors/Motors Limited, Malout Branch Bathinda through Manager<br /> 3.Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company Limited, Bathinda through Manager/Proprietor. ..Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sukhdarshan Sharma, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : S/Sh. K.S. Brar and S K Ahuja, Advocates, counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2. <br /> Sh. K K Vinocha, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Vehicle Toofan Trax Force bearing Chassis No. 757048136 A 07 and Engine No. 2701605, Model 2007 was purchased by the complainant from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 on 10.5.07 for his personal use by way of paying the margin money. Remaining price of the vehicle was paid by him by way of getting it financed with opposite party No. 3. In this manner, there is nothing outstanding towards him concerning the price of the vehicle. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were required to deliver the bill, service book and all other relevant documents to him. After getting the documents, he was to get the hypothecation of the vehicle with opposite No. 3 entered in them. Despite repeated requests, they have not been provided. He is unable to get his vehicle registered with the Registering Authority. Whenever he took out the vehicle, he was proceeded against under the Law as it is not registered. He has parked the vehicle in his house and is unable to use it. He is paying the interest on the loan amount. In addition to it, he is bearing the insurance charges. His reputation has been lowered in the eyes of his relatives and friends. Al this has caused him mental tension and financial loss. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to deliver him the bill, service book and other relevant documents of the vehicle and pay him Rs. 98,000/- as compensation.<br /> 2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try it as the vehicle was purchased from opposite party No. 1 at Malout and payment was given at Malout; complainant is not consumer as vehicle has been purchased for commercial purposes and he has concealed material facts. Inter-alia their plea is that all the documents relating to vehicle have already been delivered to the complainant. False story has been created by him. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 3 filed reply of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint against it; it is not necessary and proper party to it; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as vehicle was purchased from Malout and it was insured at Malout and bills and other documents were/are to be issued at Malout. It admits the purchase of vehicle in question from opposite party No. 1. After availing financial assistance/loan from it in terms of the agreement, complainant was to get documents from the dealer. Even otherwise vehicle in question is lying insured with Oriental Insurance Company Limited for the period from 10.9.07 to 9.5.08 vide cover note No. 145617 dated 10.5.07 at Malout which reveals engine and chassis number of vehicle and its name as Financier. These particulars could be mentioned by Insurer without going through documents. Complainant is its defaulter to the tune of Rs. 2500/-.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-2), photocopy of challan (Ex. C-3) and Verification reports (Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5).<br /> 5. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, Partner (Ex. R-5) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 3, affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Vohra, Portfolio Manager (Ex. R-1), photocopy of Cover Note (Ex. R-2), photocopy of policy (Ex. R-3) and photocopy of statement of account (Ex. R-4) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party No. 3.<br /> 7. One of the objection taken by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the reply of the complaint is that vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes and in the Insurance policy, copy of which is Ex. R-3, it has been shown to have been purchased as a vehicle which is commercial and as such, complainant is not consumer. To establish this plea, there is bald affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, partner of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. This stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant in which he has stated in so many words that he has purchased this vehicle for his personal use. There is no material on the record that complainant has ever used this vehicle for commercial purposes. A person may purchase a commercial vehicle for his personal use. This would not be sufficient to hold that he has purchased it for commercial purposes. Meaning of the commercial purpose has been explained by the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Company Limited 2005(1) CLT. According to it word for any commercial purpose would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose. For example, if a manufacturer who is producing some products is purchasing refrigerator, television or an air conditions for his use at his residence or even in his office, it cannot be held to be a commercial purpose. Since vehicle in question in this case has been purchased by the complainant for his personal use and there is no convincing evidence that it has been used for commercial purpose, complainant falls within the ambit of consumer as has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> 8. Another objection taken by the opposite parties is regarding the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain and try this complaint. It is to the effect that vehicle was purchased from Malout and payment was made at that place. It was got insured at Malout and the bills and other documents are to be issued from Malout. This objection is not tenable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Section 11 of the Act pertains to Jurisdiction of the District Forum. According to Sub Section 2(a) of this Section, complaint can be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the opposite party or each of the opposite party, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain. In this case Modern Tractors/Motors Limited, Malout has its branch office at Bathinda. It has its Manager at Bathinda. Similarly Mahindra and Mahindra Finance Company Limited has its office at Bathinda. It being so, we are of the view that instant complaint falls within the purview of Section 11(2)(a) of the Act. For this we are fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble State Commission, Punjab in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Kewal Krishan Kampani I(2007) CPJ 34. Similar view has been held in the authorities Harinder Kumar Hari Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and another II(1998) CPJ 91, Sh. Manoj Kumar Vs. National Insurance Company 1999 Judicial Reports Consumer page 241, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. S P Lamba III(1999) CPJ 309 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. M L Bhatt and another II(1997) CPJ 64. <br /> 9. Apart from this, part of the cause of action has arisen at Bathinda because delivery of the vehicle was given to the complainant at Bathinda by Modern Tractors, Bathinda vide its challan dated 10.5.07, copy of which is Ex. C-3. Accordingly, we conclude that this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. <br /> 10. Principal grouse of the complainant is that requisite documents concerning the vehicle purchased by him i.e. bill, receipt, service book and other relevant documents for getting the vehicle registered have not been supplied to him by opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Opposite party No. 1 & 2 have come with the plea that they have already delivered all the documents to him. Learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that Ex. R-3 is the copy of the Insurance Policy issued by Oriental Insurance Company Limited in favour of the complainant from which it becomes clear that vehicle has been got registered with Registration No. PB-03A-6015. He further argued that this supports the version of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 regarding the delivery of the documents. If documents were not delivered to the complainant, vehicle could not be got registered with the Registering Authority. Moreover, engine and chassis numbers have also been recorded in the policy.<br /> 11. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument by submitting that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not deliver the relevant documents of the vehicle and as such, question of getting the vehicle registered with registering authority/District Transport Officer, Bathinda does not arise. Registration No. PB-03A/6015 has been wrongly recorded in the policy, copy of which is Ex. R-3.<br /> 12. We have considered the respective arguments and we feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the complainant. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 could not show us any receipt obtained from the complainant regarding the delivery of invoice/bill, service book and other relevant documents required for the registration of the vehicle with the competent authority. Affidavit of Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Chhabra, partner of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of the complainant on this aspect of the matter. Complainant sent legal notice to Modern Tractors, copy of which is Ex. C-2, but the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not deem it fit to send its reply. From this, adverse inference is drawn against them to the effect that version of the complainant is acceptable. Had the documents of the vehicle been delivered to the complainant, what was the necessity for him to file this complaint particularly when it is not the case of the complainant and opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that any other dispute regarding the vehicle in question is pending amongst them. So far as engine and chassis numbers for the purpose of Insurance are concerned, they can be noticed by the Insurer from the vehicle itself. Complainant had moved applications Ex. C-4 & Ex. C-5 to the District Transport Officer, Bathinda seeking verification as to whether vehicle No. PB-03A-6015 and PB-03A-0015 are not lying registered in his name ? Verification has been given by District Transport Bathinda that Tractor No. PB-03A-6015 Eicher Model 1990 with Chassis No. 124101 32252, Engine No. 524299 00680 has been registered in the name of Pal Singh S/o Sh. Harnam Singh, R/o Akaal Kothe Sandhwan Wala, District Bathinda and Vehicle No. PB03A-0015 Kinetic Honda Model 1993 bearing Chassis No. 374615, Engine 364848 has been registered in the name of Mrs. Kiran Mittal, W/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Mittal, R/o Suraj Basti, Bathinda. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that documents were delivered to the complainant and on their basis he has got the vehicle in question registered with the Registering Authority/District Transport Officer, Bathinda. It is not the plea of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that any amount out of the sale consideration is due towards the complainant. In these circumstances, conclusion is that when the sale price of the vehicle has been received by opposite parties No. 1 & 2, they were bound to deliver all the relevant documents which have not been supplied to the complainant. Accordingly, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is proved.<br /> 13. Complainant got the vehicle in question financed from opposite party No. 3. He alleges that opposite party No. 3 was to receive the documents from opposite party No. 1 for getting the hypothecation entered in the Registration Certificate and as such, opposite party No. 3 is also deficient in rendering services. His this plea is unfounded and baseless. His affidavit Ex. C-1 on this aspect does not appeal to reason. Moreover, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Jatinder Vohra, Portfolio Mnager of opposite party No. 3 according to which it was not the business of opposite party No. 3 to get the purchase bills and other documents from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and to supply the same to the complainant. Complainant has purchased the vehicle. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were to supply the documents to him i.e. owner. It is not understandable that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 could deliver the documents to opposite party No. 3 particularly when there is no privity of contract between it and opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Hence no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 is established.<br /> 14. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of our foregoing discussion, direction deserves to be given to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to deliver receipt/ retail Invoice/purchase documents/service book and all other relevant documents for getting the vehicle registered with the registering authority/District Transport Officer. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 98,000/-. Act and conduct of the opposite parties must have caused mental tension and agony to the complainant. He is unable to ply the vehicle. He is also paying the interest on the amount received by him as loan for purchasing the vehicle. In case he would take the vehicle on road without registration he can be proceeded against under the law. In these circumstances, he deserves some compensation. In our view apt and appropriate compensation in this case is Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 15. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 16. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with costs of Rs. 1500/-. It stands dismissed qua opposite party No. 3. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to do as under :<br /> i) Deliver to the complainant purchase documents, Invoice/Bill of Toofan Trax Force purchased by him, receipt, service book and other relevant documents essential for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering authority/District Transport Officer.<br /> ii) Pay Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant as compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act.<br /> Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy failing which the amount of compensation under Section 14(1)(d) of the Act would carry interest @9% P.A. till realisation.<br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to record room.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 30-04-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br />