Date of Filing      : 06.12.2019

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 26.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                            ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                                      ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.02/2020

THIS TUESDAY, THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.M.Lokanathan, S/o.Late Munusamy,

No.80, Prasanna Perumal Koil Street,

Pappankuppam Village, 

S.R.Kandigai P.O., Gummidipoondi Taluk,

Thiruvallur District-601 201.                                                                       ……Complainant.

 

                                                                         //Vs//

1.M/s.Gowtham Agencies,

    Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.K.Manickam,

    Having Office at Tindivanan Road,

    Gingee -604 202.

 

2.M/s.Escort Tractors Limited,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    15/5, Mathura Road, Faridabad Sector – 27A, 

    Faridabad – 121 003.                                                                        …..opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                             :   Mr.G.Suryaprakash, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                                                      :   exparte 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 13.07.2022 in the presence of Mr.G.Suryaprakash, Advocate counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by the complainant this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the opposite parties along with a prayer to repay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the down payment paid for the purchase of Tractor with 24% interest per annum and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost of this proceedings.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It is the case of the complainant that he approached the 1st opposite party for purchase of tractor bearing model of farm track as the 1st opposite party is the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. It was informed by the 1st opposite party that the price of the said tractor is Rs.6,50,000/- and demanded the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as down payment.  As per the demand by the 1st opposite party the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- on 10.04.2018 from his Saving Bank account No.107623625 to the 1st opposite party’s account and the 1st opposite party agreed to arrange loan for the balance amount.  Further on request of the 1st opposite party the complainant also issued a blank cheque.  But till date the 1st opposite party failed to arrange the loan to purchase the tractor to the complainant.  Due to non availability of the tractor the complainant suffered huge loss as he could not carry out his commitment and plans.  Thus as there is no response from the 1st opposite party the complainant issued legal notices to the 1st opposite party on 13.07.2019, 12.09.2019 and on 14.10.2019 seeking for the refund of Rs.2,00,000/- received from the complainant.  Both the opposite parties colluded together and have committed deficiency in service by illegally receiving the amount from the complainant.  Hence the complaint was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for the reliefs as mentioned below;

a. to repay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the down payment paid for the purchase of tractor with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of transfer of money to till date of payment;

b. to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant with cost of the proceedings.

On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A7. In spite of sufficient opportunities the opposite parties did not appear and they were called absent and set ex-parte on 12.02.2021 for non appearance and for not filing written version. 

 Points for consideration:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties in arranging the loan for purchase of the Tractor to the complainant inspite of receipt of an advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-?

 2) If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

 Point No.1&2:

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;

The Statement of Account filed by the was marked as Ex.A1;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 13.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;

Acknowledgement card  was marked as Ex.A3;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 12.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Returned cover from the 1st opposite party  for the reason unclaimed was marked as Ex.A5;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 14.10.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;

Acknowledgement card for proof of service was marked as Ex.A7;

Heard the oral arguments and perused the written arguments and evidence produced by the complainant.  It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the opposite parties had jointly conspired together in cheating the complainant and that only on the demand made by the 1st opposite party the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and also had given a blank cheque but the opposite parties did not make any arrangements for the loan for the balance amount or for the delivery of the tractor.  It is submitted by him that even the receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- paid to the 1st opposite party was not honoured by the opposite party.  Thus he contended that this act clearly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

 We perused the documents produced by the complainant.  The statement of account (Ex.A1) clearly shows that on 10.04.2018 an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was transferred under the head NEFT GOWTHAM AGENCES, the 1st opposite party herein.  Further both the opposite parties had remained silent for the legal notice issued by the complainant seeking for refund of Rs.2,00,000/- paid to the 1st opposite party.  When the opposite parties did not come forward to rebut the contentions made by the complainant that the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was made to the 1st opposite party towards the purchase of tractor, it is to be presumed by this Commission that the complainant’s allegations against the opposite parties as to unfair trade practice and unlawful enrichment was proved beyond doubt. A doubt arises for this Commission as to whether the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was advanced to the 1st opposite party was only for the purchase of tractor, in the absence of any other contra defence by the opposite parties, the case put forth by the complainant was held to be proved.  In such circumstances this Commission as no other option but to conclude that both the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service by illegally receiving a down payment of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant after insisting him to book for a tractor at the time of demo programme at Ponneri Town,  but deceiving him by not arranging the loan for the balance price and also for the delivery of the tractor.

With regard to the reliefs entitled by the complainant we are of the view that as the amount had been transferred by NEFT to the 1st opposite party’s account, the 1st opposite party is liable to repay the said amount.  Hence we order the 1st opposite party to refund the said amount with interest at the rate of 6% from 10.04.2018 to till the date of realization.  Further we also order Rs.10,000/- as compensation and we also order Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings. We refrain from granting any relief against the 2nd opposite party. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the 1st Opposite Party 

a)to refund a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only)  with 6% interest from 10.04.2018 to the date of realization; 

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant; 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 26th day of July 2022

       

Sd/-                                                         Sd-                                                         Sd-

MEMBER-II                                   MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 10.04.2018 Statement of account of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 13.07.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

Ex.A4 12.09.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 23.09.2019 Unclaimed returned cover. Xerox

Ex.A6 14.10.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties. Xerox

Ex.A7 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:

 

 Nil

 

Sd-                                                                  Sd-                                                   Sd-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT