DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 06 of 01.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 30-04-2008<br /> <br /> Atma Ram S/o Chanan Ram, R/o Boha, Tehsil Budhlada District Mansa. <br /> ... 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.Indus Sind Bank Limited, Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda. ...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. Jai Gopal Goyal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Complaint has knocked the door of this Forum by way of presenting this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') with the prayer that the opposite parties be directed to deliver him bill, service book and other documents of the vehicle i.e. Toofan Trax Force and pay him Rs. 98,000/- as compensation.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself leading to its filing may be epitomized as under :-<br /> Margin money of Rs. 1.00 Lac was deposited by him with opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for purchase of vehicle Toofan Trax Force. Remaining amount for purchase of the vehicle was got arranged from opposite party 3 which is the Financier which paid it to opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 were to deliver the documents of the vehicle to opposite party No. 3 so that it may get the hypothecation entered in the Registration Certificate. Opposite party No. 3 was to deliver the documents to him after receiving them from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Neither opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have delivered the documents to him nor opposite party No. 3 has received them from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. For want of relevant documents, vehicle can not be got registered. Whenever vehicle was taken on the road, he was proceeded against under the Law. He has paid Rs. 6760/- as fine on 17.11.07. Documents were demanded from the opposite parties but they put him off on one pretext or the other. Vehicle is lying parked at his house due to which he is undergoing loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is also paying Insurance premium as well as interest on the amount of loan. His reputation stands lowered in his relatives and friends. He is unable to do any work. All this has caused him mental tension due to which he has undergone loss to the extent of Rs. 1.00 Lac. <br /> 3. 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 /> 4. Opposite party No. 3 filed separate reply of the complaint stating that complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not consumer. It admits that vehicle which was purchased from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 was got financed by the complainant. Complainant did not submit the documents of the vehicle for entering hypothection in them despite its repeated requests. <br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence affidavit of Gagandeep, Special Attorney (Ex. C-1) and photocopy of Special Power of Attorney (Ex. C-2).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, Partner (Ex. R-1), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. R-2) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 3, affidavit of Sh. Sunder Rajan, Officer (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 8. 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 copy of retail invoice Ex. R-2 type of the vehicle has been mentioned as Passenger Vehicle 11+D and as such it is a commercial vehicle. Hence, complainant is not consumer. To establish this plea, there is bald affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, partner of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 which is amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. C-1 of Gagandeep to whom Special Power of Attorney has been given by the complainant. 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 purpose. 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 conditioner 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 /> 9. 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 parties, 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. 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 /> 10. Apart from this, part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Complainant alleges that delivery of the vehicle was given to him at Bathinda and it was got financed at Bathinda. Opposite party No. 3 admits that vehicle was purchased and financed at Bathinda. Accordingly, we conclude that this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint. <br /> 11. Principal grouse of the complainant is that the documents of the vehicle i.e. retail invoice/receipt/service book etc., were not supplied to him either by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 or opposite party No. 3 after receiving them from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 due to which he could not get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority/District Transport Officer. Arguments of the learned counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is that all the relevant documents were delivered to the complainant including retail invoice copy of which is Ex. R-2. Learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 argued that opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with the receipt of the documents from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It was the duty of the complainant to receive them from opposite party No. 1 & 2 for getting the vehicle registered and thereafter entry regarding hypothecation was to be made in the registration certificate.<br /> 12. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant countered this argument by submitting that there is no evidence on the basis of which it can be said that the documents of the vehicle in question were handed over to the complainant by any of the opposite parties.<br /> 13. We have considered the rival contentions.<br /> 14. So far as the plea of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra of M/s. Modern Tractors is concerned, it stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex. C-1 of Sh. Gagandeep attorney of the complainant. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not placed and proved on record any document showing the signatures of the complainant regarding the receipt of the documents of the vehicle It is not the case of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that some other amount out of the sale consideration is outstanding towards the complainant. In such a situation, it was their duty to deliver the documents. Had the documents been delivered to the complainant, there was no occasion for him to run from pillar to post. He could get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority/District Transport Officer without any difficulty. Mere fact that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have proved copy Ex. R-2 of the retail invoice dated 9.5.07, does not advance their cause. It does not prove delivery of the retail invoice to the complainant. Facts, circumstances and the evidence in this case prove that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not deliver the documents of the vehicle to the complainant. Accordingly, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part is established.<br /> 15. Allegation of the complainant against opposite party No. 3 that it was to receive the documents from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for getting the hypothecation of the vehicle entered in the Registration Certificate, is not substantiated. Affidavit of the complainant on this aspect is rebutted with the affidavit Ex. R-3 of Sh. K. Sunder Rajan, Officer of opposite party No. 3. There is no convincing evidence of the complainant to show that it was the duty of opposite party No. 3 to receive the documents from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Moreover, vehicle was purchased by the complainant from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. They were to deliver the documents to him and not to opposite party No. 3 with whom they have no direct privity of contract. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No. 3.<br /> 16. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. In view of what has been discussed above, direction deserves to be given to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to deliver to the complainant retail Invoice/purchase documents/service book and all other relevant documents for getting the vehicle registered with the registering authority/District Transport Officer. Complainant is craving for compensation of Rs. 98,000/- on the ground that vehicle is lying parked in his house and is undergoing loss to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is paying Insurance premium and the interest on the loan amount. Act and conduct of the opposite parties have caused him mental tension and his reputation has been lowered in his friends and relatives and he is unable to do work. No doubt, there is no evidence that he has undergone loss to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- per month yet fact and circumstances clearly show that it is a fit case where complainant deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 10,000/-. <br /> 17. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 18. 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 />