DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 04 of 01.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 30-04-2008<br /> <br /> Gagandeep S/o Sh. Dev. Raj,R/o Near S.D.M. Court, Budhlada, Tehsil Budhlada, 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.Kotak Mohindera Bank Limited, Saral Auto Loans Branch, Bathinda through Manager. ..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. Vinod Garg, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No. 3. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. Instant one is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') which has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 8.00 Lacs or deliver all the documents of the vehicle and pay Rs. 3.00 Lacs towards interest, Insurance charges, hire charges and compensation.<br /> 2. Briefly put the case of the complainant is that the vehicle Toofan Trax Force was purchased by him from opposite party No. 2 which is the branch of opposite party No. 1 by way of paying Rs. 1.50 Lacs as margin money. It was purchased for his personal use and for boosting his business. This amount of Rs. 1.50 Lacs was deposited in the office of opposite party No. 2. Total price of this vehicle was Rs. 5.00 Lacs. Vehicle was got financed from opposite party No. 3. Remaining amount out of the price of the vehicle was got arranged from opposite party No. 3. Despite the fact that nothing is outstanding towards him. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not given the bill and other documents concerning the vehicle due to which he could not get the vehicle registered in his name. It was also the duty of opposite party No. 3 to get the documents of the vehicle from opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for the purpose of getting the hypothecation entered on them. This vehicle had met with an accident on 23.07.07. Thereafter it is lying parked in Police Station Dhanola. He could not get it on superdari as documents of this vehicle are not in his possession. Considerable loss has been caused to the vehicle due to the accident. Vehicle was got insured with the Insurance Company. For want of its documents, he could not submit the Insurance claim. Since vehicle is standing out side Police Station Dhanola, its condition is deteriorating day by day. Apart from this, he is taking some other vehicles on hire for his personal needs. Due to this, he is incurring expenses to the tune of about Rs. 20,000/- per month. He is also paying interest on Rs. 5.00 Lacs. His reputation in his friends and relatives has been lowered as he could not get the vehicle on Superdari. He has undergone mental tension. He claims that he is entitled to Rs. 5.00 Lacs i.e. price of the vehicle; compensation for hire of other vehicle for use @ Rs. 20,000/- per month from 23.7.07 onwards i.e. Rs. 1.00 Lac; interest on Rs. 5.00 Lacs from 23.7.07 onwards; Insurance amount Rs. 17,000/- and Rs. 1.00 Lac as compensation. In all he claims Rs. 8.00 Lacs due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.<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. Reply of the complaint was filed by opposite party No. 3 to the effect that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as complainant is resident of Budhlada District Mansa; loan was advanced at Ludhiana and agreement was executed at Ludhiana; It has no branch at Bathinda and vehicle was purchased at Malout. Complainant is defaulter in making the payment of loan advanced to him; he is not consumer as vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes. On merits, it admits that Toofan Trax Force was purchased by him from opposite party No. 2 which is the branch of opposite party No. 1 by way of paying margin money. Remaining amount was financed by it. Complainant was under the obligation and duty bound to get the vehicle registered with the registering authority. After getting the entry of hypothecation made in the registration certificate, the same was to be supplied to it. It denies that it was liable to get the documents from opposite parties No. 1 & 2. It had taken the photocopy of Invoice and receipt from opposite party No. 1. It denies for want of knowledge that vehicle had met with an accident on 23.7.07. Charges of interest and other dues are pending against him concerning the loan amount of Rs. 5.00 Lacs. He is its defaulter to the tune of Rs. 1,07,100/- of equated monthly installments alongwith overdue and cheque bouncing charges upto February, 2008. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of F.I.R. (Ex. C-2) and photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-3).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 affidavit of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra, Partner (Ex. R-1) and on behalf of opposite parties No. 3, affidavit of Sh. Samit Arora, Asst. Manager (Ex. R-13), photocopy of retail Invoice (Ex. R-2), photocopy of payment receipt (Ex. R-3) , photocopy of Insurance Cover Note (Ex. R-4), photocopy of application Form (Ex. R-5), photocopy of agreement (Ex. R-6), photocopy of agreement schedule (Ex. R-7), photocopy of schedule (Ex. R-8), photocopies of View party (Ex. R-9 to Ex. R-10), photocopy of account statement (Ex. R-11) and photocopy of letter dated 26.2.08 (Ex. R-12) 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 objections taken by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 in the reply of the complaint is that vehicle was purchased for commercial purposes and as such, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as has been given in the Act. Hence, complaint before this Forum is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the opposite parties drew our attention to para No. 2 of the complaint in which complainant has averred that he had purchased Toofan Trax Force for his personal use/convenience and for improvement in his work. Learned counsel for the opposite parties further submitted that as is evident from Ex. R-2 copy of the retail invoice produced by opposite party No. 3 Toofan Trax Force has the capacity of 11+1D and as such, it is a commercial vehicle. Mr. Sharma learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is no material on the record on the basis of which it can be said that vehicle in question was purchased commercial purposes.<br /> 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments and screening the evidence on record we do not feel ourselves inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the opposite parties. There is no material on the record that complainant ever used this vehicle for any commercial purpose. 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. 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 conditioners 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. There is no evidence that complainant is doing any other work/business for which it is being used. So far as affidavits Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-13 of S/Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra and Samit Arora on this aspect of the matter are concerned, they stand amply rebutted with the affidavit of the complainant which is Ex. C-1. Hence, complaint before this Forum is maintainable.<br /> 10. 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 and the bills and other documents are to be issued from Malout. For this reliance is placed by opposite parties No. 1 to 3 on documents Ex. R-2, Ex. R-3 and Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-7. 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 Kotek Mahindra Bank limited has its Saral Auto Loans Branch at Bathinda and it has been served at this address and is contesting the complaint. It being so, we are of the view that instant complaint falls within the purview of Section 11(2)(a) of the Act and as such, this Forum has got the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try it. 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 /> 11. 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 argued that Ex. R-4 is the copy of the Insurance Cover Note issued by United India Insurance Company Limited in which the engine number, chassis number and manufacturing year of the vehicle in question have been recorded. Opposite party No. 3 also got copies of the retail Invoice and receipt dated 21.3.07 from Modern Tractors and copies of the same are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3. All this shows that complainant must have been supplied with all the relevant documents of the vehicle. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant argued that evidence does not establish that documents of the vehicle were supplied to the complainant.<br /> 12. Respective contentions have been considered by us.<br /> 13. Opposite parties No. 1 & 2 have not placed and proved on record any receipt showing the signatures of the complainant regarding delivery of the documents of the vehicle on the basis of which it can be got registered with the registering authority. Affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Chhabra stands rebutted with the affidavit Ex. C-1 of the complainant. Complainant got served legal notice copy of which is Ex. C-3. It has not been proved that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 sent reply of this notice. From this adverse inference is drawn against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to the effect that in fact documents have not been supplied. Had they been supplied, they (opposite parties) would not have sit folded handed. Mere fact that opposite party No. 3 has produced copies of the retail invoice and the receipt which are Ex. R-2 & Ex. R-3 respectively, does not prove that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 delivered the retail invoice and the receipt to the complainant. There may be various reasons on account of which opposite party No. 3 got copy of the retail invoice and receipt. Similarly the fact that in the Insurance Cover Note chassis number and engine number have been recorded by the Insurer is no ground to conclude that opposite parties No. 1 & 2 supplied the documents of the vehicle to the complainant. It is also worth mentioning that while insuring the vehicle, the Insurer confirms the engine number and chassis from the vehicle itself. For that documents may not be essential. Had the documents been supplied to the complainant, there was no occasion for him to knock the door of this Forum. He could get the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority/District Transport Officer without any hurdle and hindrance. It is not the case of the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that any amount out of the sale consideration is due towards the complainant. When the entire sale consideration has been received, opposite parties no. 1 & 2 were bound to deliver the retail Invoice, receipt, service book and all other documents relevant for getting the vehicle registered with the Registering Authority/District Transport Officer. Hence the conclusion is that the delivery of the documents of the vehicle by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 to the complainant is not proved. Accordingly, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 is writ large.<br /> 14. 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 parties No. 1 & 2 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-13 of Sh. Sumit Arora, Assistant Manager according to which opposite party No. 3 has nothing to do with the preparation of the registration certificate and other documents and complainant was duty bound to get the registration certificate and endorsement of hypothecation made on it. Ex. R-6 is the copy of the agreement between complainant and opposite party No. 3 which clinches the matter. According to it complainant has undertaken to get the registration certificate of the hypothecated asset endorsed with the name of opposite party No. 3 in accordance with Article 3.1(b). This undertaking has been given by him in Article 3.1(a) in the agreement. In these circumstances, plea of the complainant that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 is not stand substantiated. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3.<br /> 15. 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. Prayer of the complainant is for direction to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 5.00 Lacs as price of the vehicle. This relief is not tenable in view of the relief which is going to be accorded as above. He is craving for hire charges of another vehicle @ Rs. 20,000/- per month. There is no cogent and convincing evidence for this purpose. He has not established whose vehicle was hired by him and how much amount has been paid by him. So far as Insurance is concerned, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 did not compel him for it. Complainant is also craving for compensation on the ground that vehicle is lying parked in Police Station Dhanola as it had met with an accident. Due to the fact that documents have not been delivered to him, he is unable to get it released on Superdari. He could not get the Insurance claim on this ground. He is unable to get the vehicle on Superdari. Its condition is deteriorating as it is standing outside the Police Station, he is also paying interest on the amount which was got financed by him. For all this, he is certainly entitled to some amount as compensation. In our view apt and appropriate compensation on these aspects of the matter and for mental agony and harassment is Rs. 10,000/-. <br /> 16. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 17. In the premises written above, complaint is allowed against opposite parties No. 1 & 2 with cost 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 />