Karnataka

Chamrajnagar

CC/48/2007

Smt.Rathnamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Gagagan Tractors - Opp.Party(s)

MR.J.S.

18 Dec 2009

ORDER

 

     Brief facts leading to this complaint may be set out as follows:-

 

1. The complainant  took the quotation  from the opposite party for purchase of Balwan 45 HP tractor along with other accessories  for Rs.6,30,000/- and borrowed loan of Rs.6,30,000/- from the Canara Bank for the purpose of the same. But the opposite party has delivered Balwan tractor of 35 HP instead of 45HP and did not deliver other accessories  as mentioned in the quotation even though the opposite party received amount for 45 HP engine. The complainant is uneducated and the opposite party to make unlawful gain delivered 35HP engine instead of 45 HP engine to the complainant and  there after the complainant  contacted  the opposite party  several times for supply of accessories but he went on postponing the same. The complainant purchased  trailer  by  taking crop loan. The complainant has suffered  loan of Rs.25,000/-  due to non-delivery of other accessories. The opposite party is liable to refund  the price of other accessories  amount of Rs.2,31,000/- with interest  at 18% p.a. from 21.08.2005 and also replace 35 HP  engine and deliver new 45HP engine. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and cost of this proceedings of Rs.2,000/-. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 27.08.2005 when the complainant gave D.D. to the opposite party subsequently legal notice issued  on 15.06.2007. Hence, the complainant is  forced to file this  complaint seeking said reliefs.

 

1.  While  contesting the complaint the opposite party has contended that the complainant  insisted for delivery of 35HP engine instead of 45HP engine and so he delivered 35HP engine and refunded the difference amount of Rs.20,000/- to the husband  and son of complainant and the husband  of complainant has passed receipt for Rs.20,000/- and he has also delivered other accessories to the complainant. He has denied other allegations made in this complaint and contended that he has not  caused deficiency in service to the complainant and he is not liable  for  any of the reliefs sought by the complainant. He has further alleged that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and the averments made in the  complaint are all false and  created by the complainant.  Thus he has requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

 

1. In support of her complaint the complainant has filed three affidavits and produced following documents  along with list dated  04.07.2007.
   1. Zerox copy of the quotation.
   2. Zerox copy of the cash bill.
   3. Zerox copy of the cash receipt.
   4. Zerox copy of the letter dt. 25.11.2005.
   5. Copy of the  legal notice dt.15.06.2007.
   6. RPAD  receipt dt.15.06.2007.
   7. C.O.P. receipt dt.15.06.2007.
   8. Certified zerox copy of the R.C. Book of Tractor and Trailer.
   9. Broucher of Balwan 45HP Tractor.

 

1. As against this, the opposite party has filed two affidavits and produced  four documents  with list dated 20.2.2009.
   1. Original copy of the delivery note.
   2. “B” extract.
   3. Cash vouchers –2 No.
   4. Consideration receipt.

 

1. Heard arguments.

 

1. In view of the rival contentions  of the parties the  crucial question that arises  for our consideration is as under.

“ Whether  the complainant proves that the opposite party has caused deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint”? 

                                        REASONS

1. The main contention of the complainant is that the opposite party gave quotation for purchase of 45HP tractor along with relevant accessories for Rs.6,30,000/-  and she borrowed loan of Rs.6,30,000/- from Canara Bank and delivered  the amount to the opposite party but the opposite party instead of supplying 45HP engine supplied 35HP engine and  did not deliver other accessories as mentioned in the quotation.

 

1. On the contrary  it is contended by the opposite party that as per the request  of the complainant he delivered 35HP engine and refunded difference amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant’s husband and son  and the  husband  of the complainant has passed receipt for Rs.20,000/- and he has delivered  all the accessories as mentioned in the  quotation  to the husband of the complainant by delivery challen dated 02.09.2006.

 

1. Looking to the quotation  dated 20.07.2005 it is evident that the opposite party has given quotation for 45HP Balwan tractor. The opposite party has addressed letter dated 21.11.2005 to the Manager, Canara Bank stating that  he has received D.D. dated 27.08.2005 for Rs.6,30,000/- for supply of tractor, trailer and accessories  to the complainant. The opposite party has also  passed cash receipt dated 27.08.2005 for having received Rs.6,30,000/- from the complainant.

 

1. It is to be noted that the  price of  45HP tractor engine is Rs.4,15,000/- whereas that of 35HP engine tractor is Rs.3,96,000/-. So there is   difference  of Rs.19,000/- between the two prices.

 

1. The opposite  party has produced  one cash receipt dated  07.07.2006 passed by the son of complainant for Rs.10,000/- and another cash receipt  dt.28.08.2006 passed by the  husband of the complainant for Rs.10,000/-. In addition to that the opposite party has produced  another cash receipt  dt.28.08.2006 passed by the husband of the complainant for having received Rs.20,000/- in respect of difference  in price between 45HP  engine and 35HP engine tractor. What can be made out from these three  cash receipts is that the son  and husband of complainant  have received Rs.10,000/- each from the opposite party towards  difference in price of the tractor.

 

1. It is however contended  by the  learned counsel for the complainant  that the  complainant has not given any authorization  to her husband and son to receive  difference  of price from the opposite party and besides the husband and son of complainant have not filed their affidavits  for having received Rs.10,000/- each  from the opposite party and without  authorization from the complainant the husband and son of complainant are not empowered to collect  the difference price from the opposite party.

 

1. Of course, the opposite party has not produced  any authorization  letter issued by the complainant infavour of  her husband and son to collect the difference of price from the  opposite party , it is  to be noted that the opposite party has delivered 35HP tractor to the husband of the complainant  on 02.09.2005. The complainant clearly admits that the opposite party has delivered  35HP tractor to her, but she has not signed to the delivery challen cum invoice but it is signed by  husband of the complainant. The complainant is admittedly  a woman and she has signed  to the complaint in kannada language. It is  only that male persons in the family  like husband and son  manage all money transactions and in the same  way the husband  of complainant  has received Rs.10,000/-  on 28.08.2006 and  the son of complainant has received Rs.10,000/- on 07.07.2006 from the opposite party and both of them have passed  cash receipts to the opposite party and in addition to that the husband of complainant has clearly mentioned in the receipt dt.28.08.2006 that they have purchased 35HP engine tractor instead of 45HP engine tractor and the  difference amount of Rs.20,000/- is received by him and  his son under two different cash receipts  from the opposite party. In view of these three  cash receipts it is clearly established that the husband and son of complainant have received Rs.20,000/- towards difference   in price of the tractor from the opposite party  on behalf of the complainant and for this purpose no authorization is required  from the complainant.  Now the complainant with the view to make unlawful gain from the opposite party created  this false  story  of not authorizing her husband and son to collect difference amount. That being so  we donot accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant.

 

1. As regards the contention of complainant that opposite party has not supplied other accessories  it is established by the  delivery challen cum invoice dated 02.09.2005  that the opposite party has supplied trailer, 9 tins cultivator, 2 Farrow M.B.plough, 6 feet land leveler, peddler, tractor hook & Frame assembly  to the complainant and the husband of the complainant has signed  the same for having received all  the  accessories  on behalf of  complainant.  Merely for the reason that the complainant has not signed the delivery challen  it cannot be stated that the opposite party has not supplied trailer and other accessories to the complainant. 

 

1. It is to be noted that the  delivery challen  is dated 02.09.2005 and  this complaint is filed on  04.07.2007 after lapse of two years. If the  opposite party had not supplied  trailer  and other accessories along with tractor the complainant would not have kept mum  for  these two long years. This inordinate delay in making claim would compel us to draw  an adverse inference against the complainant.  Taking  advantage of the fact  that  the complainant has not signed  the delivery challen the  complainant has filed this false complaint to make unlawful gain from the opposite party. Admittedly  K.M.Mahadevappa is the husband of the complainant  and on behalf of his wife he has received delivery of  tractor trailer and other accessories from the opposite party  on 02.09.2005 itself and  signed delivery challen. It is further  seen that  the tractor and trailer  have been registered  in RTO office, Chamarajanagar in the  name of the complainant on 21.10.2005 and registration number of tractor is KA-10/T 2850 and registration number of trailer is KA-10/T2851. If the trailer had not been delivered to the complainant along with tractor RTO would not have registered the trailer on the same  day along with the tractor. This fact clearly goes to prove that  the opposite party has supplied tractor and trailer  on the same day.

 

1. Thus  on assessing the entire  evidence and documents produced by the parties it is clearly established that the complainant  herself has requested  for supply of 35HP engine tractor  and received difference amount of Rs.20,000/- from the opposite party and she has also  received tractor trailer and other accessories from the opposite party and the opposite party has delivered 35HP tractor trailer and other accessories to the husband of complainant  on her behalf and therefore  we have  no hesitation to hold that the opposite party has not caused any deficiency in service to the complainant  and there is no cause of action to file this complaint . Therefore the complaint  is liable to be dismissed . Hence, we answer this point in the negative.

 

1. In the result for the aforesaid reasons we  proceed to pass the following

 

ORDER

The complaint is  hereby dismissed with no costs.