Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/18/2019

Vishavjeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Escorts Agri Machinery, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ajay Verma

05 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

 

                                        Complaint Case No. 518 of 2019

                                        Date of Institution: 12.07.2019

                                        RBT No.                18 of 26.08.2019

                                        Date of Decision:   05.06.2024  

Vishavjeet son of Sh. Kadam Singh, resident of village Imlota, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri-127306

                                                                                      ... Complainant.

                                                Versus

M/s. Escorts Limited, Escorts Agri Machinery, 18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad-121007 (Haryana) through its Managing Director/authorized representative.

                                                                             ...Opposite parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:  Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                    Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member

         

Present:     Sh. Ajay Verma, Counsel for the complainant.

                    Sh. Satender Ghanghas, Counsel for Opposite party.

                           

ORDER:

1.                Alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the complainant participated in the process of online auction of tractors for purchase of the same for agriculture purpose. The OP viz. M/s Escorts Ltd. (now M/s Escorts Kubota Limited w.e.f. 09.06.2022) has telephonically informed that he was successful bidder for the said tractor. As per instruction of OP, he got transferred  a sum of Rs. 7,20,160/- including GST as the cost of Farmtrac 6080 Pro 4WD Agricultural Tractor bearing Engine No. E2404955, chassis No. T052399357DF in the account of OP against e-way bill No.331094045365 dated 08.03.2019. The OP issued temporary registration certificate provided by special registration authority and temporary registration no. HR-99ACT (Temp.)7491 was provided to the complainant. The OP-company handed over the copy of e-way bill as well as tractor to the complainant. The complainant applied for registration of tractor in question with SDM office, Charkhi Dadri. Then the complainant was shocked to know online that OP had played fraud as tractor in question sold by the OP to the complainant, had already been registered with SDM office Moga (Punjab) in the name of one Harmanpreet Singh  under its earlier registration no. PB-29X-6679. The complainant used it for agriculture work, then it came into the knowledge that said tractor was not in good working condition because its lift was not working properly. OP had sold a second hand defective tractor and played fraud. The complainant brought these facts into the notice of OP. But the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and hence, this complaint. It is prayed that the opposite party be directed to handover a fresh demo tractor as shown and told to the complainant at the time of auction, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and physical agony and economy loss and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.

2.                OP on appearance filed the contested written statement taking preliminary objections regarding locus standi, cause of action, maintainability and concealment of true and material facts.  The OP in written statement has submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.   The tractor was sale return from the dealer of the OP in Punjab and the OP in good faith has further sold it to the complainant believing the tractor to be fresh and it’s just that the model was old. The OP as it has been submitted earlier also was not aware of the fact that the dealer had already sold the tractor to some other customer. Therefore the dealer must be impleaded as a party so that the actual facts with regard to the tractor can be discovered. It is pertinent to mention here that the tractor sold was of top quality without any kind of defects and was sold after providing heavy discounts just because it was a sale return from the dealer and not a second hand tractor. It was clearly told to the complainant that the tractor bears no warranty of whatsoever nature. Moreover the OP was not aware of the fact that tractor was sold by the dealer and registered on the name of some other customer. The complainant has not suffered any mental agony or harassment at the hands of the OP and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua OP.

3.                In the evidence, the complainant has tendered documents Ex.P-1 to Ex. P-12 on 16.03.2021 and remaining evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/A and document Ex.P13 and closed the evidence on 23.05.2022.

4.                On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit as Ex. RW-1/A and documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R3 and closed the evidence on 23.12.2022.

5.                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel of complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of their written statement and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed on record by the parties

6.                We have heard the arguments of representative/learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire evidence placed on record by the parties very carefully and minutely.

7.                It has emerged that tractor sold to the complainant was not new one. The complainant has averred that the tractor sold was second hand as the same was previously registered in the name of Shri. Harmanpreet Singh of District Moga, Punjab on 25.02.2018 vide registration no. PB 29X6679, Chasis No. T052399XXXXX, Engine No. E24XXXXX as evident from “Vehicle Details showing in Registering Authority”. Registering Authority, Moga SDM, Punjab (Ex.C1). Chasis No., Engine No., registration date and validity of fitness are same as are that of tractor sold to the complainant. The complainant came to know about previous registration when he filed documents for registration of tractor purchased from the OP vide invoice no. T49/19/115122 dated 07.03.2019 (Ex.P5 & Annexure.R2). as the OP has placed on record registration certificate Annexure R3 in the name of complainant viz. “VISHAVJEET”, Registered number HR13R7011 registration dated 25.02.2018, Regd. Validity 31.07.2032, Chassis No. T052399357DF, Engine No. E2404955, Model No. FARMTRAC 6080. The earlier date was same as earlier regd in Moga i.e. 25.02.2018, while the complainant purchase on 07.03.2019. The OP in its written statement, inter alia mentioned that the allegation of the complainant  that the tractor sold to him was already registered on the name of some other person from Punjab was to be verified from the dealer to whom the tractor was billed from the company and he should be impleaded as a party in this case so as to clarify the true facts, however in the normal practice the tractors sold through auction from MOL ANMOL i.e. a department of Escorts Limited which deals in the sale and purchase of Stock tractors and Demo Tractors. It is pertinent to mention here that as a matter of record the tractors sold through MOL ANMOL does not include the tractor already sold and registered in the name of some other customer. It reveals that the tractor was already registered in the name of Shri Harmanpreet Singh. The OP should have ensured that the said tractor was not sold/registered in the name of any party before putting the same on auction. It was the OP who should have taken action against the person/agency who had sold the tractor earlier and clandestinely returned the said tractor to OP as unsold inventory. Averment that earlier registration was done without knowledge of the OP, casts doubt on the authenticity of averments made by the OP before this Commission. We are of the opinion that the tractor which was sold to the complainant had been sold earlier to Shri Harmanpreet Singh and OP concealed this vital fact from the complainant knowingly. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the second hand tractor was sold to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and following order is passed:-

1. OP to hand over a fresh demo tractor of the same model or alternative model with same technical specification and taken back the earlier one.
2. To pay Rs.20,000/-  (Twenty Thousand only) as compensation on account of mental agony, physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand only) as the litigation charges.

The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the said amount shall also attract interest @9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint. Certified copy of the order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.