BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT NALGONDA
PRESENT: SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER,
PRESIDENT.
SMT.S.SANDHYA RANI,
FEMALE MEMBER.
. . .
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 27 OF 2018
Between:
Mailaram Gangaiah S/o Ramaiah, Aged: 45 years,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Laxmapuram Village of Ramannapet
Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir District.
…COMPLAINANT.
]
AND
1. M/s Nagarjuna Agro Services, Head Office, Opp: Government Head
Quarters Hospital, Nalgonda. Rep.by its Authorized Person
by name Bitla Sanjeeva Reddy.
2. M/s Nagarjuna Agro Services, Branch Office, HP Petrol Bunk Area,
Choutuppal Village and Mandal. Rep.by its Branch Manager,
A.Rameshwar.
3. Batka Naresh S/o Narsimha, Aged: 35 years, Occ: Salesman of
M/s Nagarjuna Agro Services, Nalgonda and Choutuppal,
R/o Vuthatur Village of Ramannapet Mandal, Yadadri-Bhongir
District.
…OPPOSITE PARTIES.
This complaint coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri J.Bhaskar Reddy, Advocate for the Complainant, and Sri P.Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Parties, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum passed the following:
ORDER OF THE FORUM DELIVERED
BY SRI MAMIDI CHRISTOPHER, PRESIDENT
1. The Complainant filed this complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of the receipt of amounts till the date of realization and order to replace a
Contd…2
-2-
new tractor in place of defective vehicle, Rs.2,40,000/- towards deficiency of services and compensation caused to the Complainant, in total Rs.5,00,000/-.
2. The facts leading to the filing of this complaint as follows:
The Complainant wants to purchase one Swaraj-742 Tractor for cultivation of his agricultural lands and approached the Opposite Party No.2 on 08/11/2017. The Opposite Party No.2 issued an estimation slip for Swaraj-742 Tractor for Rs.6,10,000/- on negotiation. The Complainant agreed to purchase the said Swaraj-742 Tractor for Rs.6,10,000/-. Out of the said amount, the Complainant paid Rs.80,000/- on 08/11/2017 and Opposite Party No.2 agreed to deliver the tractor and the remaining amount of Rs.5,30,000/- to be paid within one month and Opposite Party No.2 agreed that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to receive by way of loan. The Complainant immediately paid Rs.80,000/- on 08/11/2017 and Opposite Party No.2 issued temporary/provisional receipt for the said amount. The Opposite Party No.2 delivered the vehicle on 08/11/2017, vide Delivery Challan No.987. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.3, i.e. the salesman of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 approached the Complainant and demanded for the remaining amounts and asked to deposit in his account. Accordingly, the Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- in Account No.62257760626 of State Bank of India, Ramannapet Branch, dated 23/11/2017, belongs to Opposite Party No.3. Subsequently the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 on 30/11/2017 and Opposite Party No.2 issued temporary/
Contd…3
-3-
provisional receipt for Rs.90,000/- on 30/11/2017, totally the Complainant paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The Complainant applied loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with Cholamandalam Finance, i.e. Private Finance Agency at Choutuppal and the same was pending for approval. At the time of taking the delivery of the vehicle, i.e. on 08/11/1017 the Complainant got extra fittings to the said Swaraj-742 Tractor at Roomi Engineering Works, Choutuppal and spend an amount of Rs.4,000/- and it was advised to keep the engine cooling for 30 hours. Accordingly, the Complainant kept the Tractor engine cooling for 30 hours, which takes a period 2 to 3 weeks. After cooling the engine, the said Tractor was taken to work in his agricultural fields. When the said Tractor was used for ploughing the land, there was no pickup in the engine and it was not working properly. The Complainant thought that it was mechanical defect and he immediately contacted the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 sent one mechanic by name Krishna. The said mechanic after inspecting Swaraj Tractor informed the Complainant that there was mechanical defect and set the pump time and tried to plough the land, but there was no change in pickup. The mechanic went back and after two days, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 sent company members and they verified by opening the Swaraj-742 Tractor engine and informed that the nozel and pumps are to be changed and asked the Complainant to bring the vehicle to the show-room, i.e. Opposite Party No.1 at Head Office, Nalgonda. Accordingly, the Complainant took the vehicle on 19/12/2017 to the showroom of Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant while taking the tractor to the showroom filled with diesel at the cost of Rs.2,474/- at Prasanna Rathnakar Filling Station, Ramannapet, vide Receipt No.860, dated 19/12/2017. The Opposite
Contd…4
-4-
Party No.1 changed the oil in the engine in the showroom and the Complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,500/- towards oil change, vide Receipt No.5167, dated 19/12/2017. Some spare parts were also changed and the Complainant paid Rs.400/-, vide receipt No.8023, dated 19/12/2017. Thereafter, the showroom persons asked the Complainant to keep the tractor at showroom for observation and the vehicle kept at the show-room of Opposite Party No.1, vide Gate Pass No.2264, dated 19/12/2017. The Complainant demanded the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to rectify the mechanical defects or replace it by new one, so as to cultivate his lands, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not respond to his demands. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 intentionally, dishonestly and voluntarily sold the mechanical defective Swraj-742 Tractor to the Complainant, for which the Complainant sustained heavy loss during the said agricultural season. Due to non-delivery of his tractor after rectifying the defects nor replaced by new one, the Complainant could not cultivate his agricultural lands and he was constrained to purchase another new tractor for his emergency cultivation work, for which he spent huge amounts. The Complainant sustained heavy loss, time and health and also sustained mental agony for defective services of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The Complainant got issued a legal notice on 31/05/2018 to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 demanding them to replace the tractor with new one and to return an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- paid by him. After receiving the said notice, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 replied on 14/06/2018 with all false allegations. As there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, the Complainant filed this complaint.
Contd…5
-5-
3. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 filed written version denying all the averments of the complaint. It is admitted that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 are running Swaraj Tractor business for the last 35 years under the name and style M/s Nagarjuna Agro Services. On the approach of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 agreed to sell Swaraj-742 Tractor for an amount of Rs.6,10,000/- to the Complainant. The said tractor was delivered on 08/11/2017 to the Complainant and he paid Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.3, who is the sales representative approached the Complainant on several times for payment of the balance amount after one week from the date of delivery of the vehicle. On 23/11/2017 the Opposite Party No.3 approached the Complainant for payment of balance amount, the Complainant transferred an amount of Rs.90,000/- into the account of Opposite Party No.3 in his Account No.62257760626 of SBI, Ramannapet Branch. The Opposite Party No.3 transferred the said amount into the account of Opposite Party No.2 on 01/12/2017. The Opposite Parties denies that the Complainant paid Rs.90,000/- on 30/11/2017, in fact temporary/provisional receipt for Rs.90,000/- dated 30/11/2017 was issued by Opposite Party No.2 is only in respect of the amount paid into the account of the sales representative, i.e. Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant with a fraudulent intention claiming that Rs.90,000/- was paid on 30/11/2017 to Opposite Party No.2, infact the Complainant paid only Rs.1,70,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2. The Opposite Party No.2 was not aware of the Complainant spent Rs.4,000/- at Roomy Engineering Works, Choutuppal towards extra fittings and Opposite Party No.2 has nothing to do with the purchase of extra fittings and also denied that for cooling of engine for 30 hours, it
Contd…6
-6-
would take 2 to 3 weeks time. The Company did not advice to keep the vehicle for 30 hours. It was denied by Opposite Party No.2 that when the tractor was used for ploughing, there was a problem in pickup. Further there was no mechanical defect at any point of time as alleged by the Complainant and that one mechanic Krishna never inspected the vehicle at the fields of the Complainant and never found any defects as alleged by the Complainant. Any mechanical defect can be answered by the Company only through their qualified mechanics and engineers and if at all any new vehicle is found with mechanical defects, the company Engineers would inspect the vehicle and take appropriate steps with regard to that matter. All the allegations with regard to the mechanical defects are made by the Complainant only in order to bring the dispute within the purview of the consumer dispute. The Complainant failed to pay the balance sale consideration and wanted to black mail the Opposite Parties company which is having good reputation in the business field. The Opposite Party No.2 further denied that the company personnel informed the Complainant to change nozzles and pumps and asked the Complainant to bring the vehicle to showroom at Nalgonda, in fact the Complainant was asked to send the vehicle to the showroom at Nalgonda for first service through one M.Narsimha on 19/12/2017. The first service was done by the Opposite Parties by collecting only cost of the engine oil and filters. When the vehicle was brought for first service, no problem was noticed by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties asked the Complainant to pay the balance consideration of Rs.4,40,000/-, but he was not ready to pay the balance consideration, as such the vehicle was kept in the showroom and the agent of the Complainant left by
Contd…7
-7-
obtaining receipt from the Opposite Parties. There is no mechanical defect in the vehicle and the said defect is only an invented by the Complainant only in order to make loss to the Opposite Parties, as the Complainant was not in a position to pay the amount. The Complainant used the tractor from 08/11/2017 to 18/12/2017 and completed agricultural operations. The Opposite Parties noticed the removal of hours meter cable in order to avoid recording of running the vehicle. The Opposite Parties suffered financial loss as the Complainant failed to keep up the promise of paying the balance amount within one week. The Opposite Parties waited nearly 40 days in anticipation of receiving the balance sale consideration. The Complainant expressed his inability to pay the balance sale consideration and settled the matter with Opposite Party No.2 on 27/05/2018 at Choutuppal and received an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the Opposite Parties and the remaining Rs.30,000/- was deducted by the Opposite Parties as the said vehicle was used for 40 days. There was full and final settlement of the matter between the parties. Having received the said amount, the Complainant got issued a legal notice on 31/05/2018 by suppressing material facts. The Opposite Parties issued reply on 14/06/2018. The matter was settled by the elders between the Opposite Parties and the Complainant and an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the Complainant on 27/05/2018 by deducting Rs.30,000/- towards the charges for the use of the vehicle for 40 days. The Complainant executed the document in favour of the Opposite Parties, evidencing the settlement of the claim. The Complainant alleged that there was mechanical defect, in fact there was no defect in the vehicle supplied by the Opposite Parties and there is no deficiency in service
Contd…8
-8-
on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The Complainant is not
entitled for any compensation as claimed in the complaint. The Opposite Parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Complainant filed his proof affidavit and marked Exs.A-1 to A-14. Sri Bittla Sanjeev Reddy, Managing Partner of Opposite Party No.1 filed his proof affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-9.
5. The points for consideration are:
1) Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the
Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 in selling the defective tractor?
2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the claims
he made in his complaint?
3) If so, to what extent?
6. POINT No.1:
The Complainant purchased Swaraj-742 Tractor from the Opposite Party No.2 on 08/11/2017. The Opposite Party No.2 issued an estimation slip (Ex.A-1) for Swaraj-742 Tractor for Rs.6,10,000/-. The Complainant immediately paid Rs.80,000/- on 08/11/2017, vide Ex.A-2 and Opposite Party No.2 delivered the tractor and the remaining amount of Rs.5,30,000/- to be paid within one month and Opposite Party No.2 agreed that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to receive by way of loan. The Complainant deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- in Account No.62257760626 of State Bank of India, Ramannapet Branch, vide Ex.A-3, dated 23/11/2017, belongs to Opposite Party No.3. The Complainant also paid an amount of Rs.90,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 on 30/11/2017, and Opposite Party No.2 issued temporary/provisional receipt (Ex.A-4) for
Contd…9
-9-
Rs.90,000/- on 30/11/2017, totally the Complainant paid Rs.2,60,000/- to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. The Complainant applied loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with Cholamandalam Finance at Choutuppal and the same was pending for approval. The Complainant purchased spare parts and extra fittings to the said Swaraj-742 Tractor at Roomi Engineering Works, Choutuppal, vide Ex.A-5 for Rs.4,000/-. On the advice of the Opposite Party No.2, the Complainant kept the Tractor engine cooling for 30 hours, which takes a period 2 to 3 weeks. When the said Tractor was used for ploughing the land, the Complainant found that there was no pickup in the engine and was not working properly. The Complainant immediately informed the same to the Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.2 sent one mechanic by name Krishna. The said mechanic after inspecting Swaraj Tractor informed the Complainant that there was mechanical defect and set the pump time and tried to plough the land, but there was no change in pickup. The mechanic went back and after two days, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 sent company members and they verified by opening the Swaraj-742 Tractor engine and informed that the nozzle and pumps are to be changed and asked the Complainant to bring the vehicle to the show-room, i.e. Opposite Party No.1 at Head Office, Nalgonda. Accordingly, the Complainant took the vehicle on 19/12/2017 to the showroom of Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, the showroom persons asked the Complainant to keep the tractor at showroom for observation and the vehicle kept at the show-room of Opposite Party No.1, vide Gate Pass No.2264, dated 19/12/2017. The Complainant demanded the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 to rectify the mechanical defects or replace it by new one, so as to cultivate his lands, but the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 did not
Contd…10
-10-
respond to his demands, for which the Complainant sustained heavy loss during the said agricultural season. The onus is on the Complainant to prove the defect and loss sustained. The Complainant stated that one Krishna, Mechanic inspected the tractor, but he was not examined nor any report filed.
7. If at all any defect was found in the tractor, the Complainant should have got inspected it by an expert mechanic and got a report with regard to the defect of the vehicle and its functioning, but the Complainant has not taken any efforts to get it done so. There is no evidence with regard to the cooling of the vehicle for 30 hours for two to three weeks. The Complainant has not substantiated any evidence with regard to the defect of the vehicle. It is true that the Complainant paid Rs.80,000/- on the date of delivery of the vehicle to him by Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.90,000/- through transfer of the amount into the account of Opposite Party No.3 and another amount of Rs.90,000/-, dated 30/11/2017, totally an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.2 Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 towards the sale consideration of the tractor.
8. As per the written version and affidavit of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, Ex.B-1 is the agreement towards purchase of the tractor for Rs.6,10,000/- and receiving of Rs.80,000/- towards sale consideration from the Complainant. Ex.B-2 is the servicing Job Card of the vehicle, dated 19/12/2017 and it was noted that the service was done with regard to the engine oil servicing and it was done free of cost. Exs.B-3 and B-4 are the bills issued by Opposite Party No.1. Ex.B-5 is the Bank pass book extract of Opposite Party No.3 along with Statement
Contd…11
-11-
of Account, which shows that an amount of Rs.90,000/- was credited
in the account of Opposite Party No.2 on 23/11/2017 and debited an amount of Rs.90,000/- into the account of Opposite Party No.2 on 01/12/2017. Ex.B-6 is the bank pass book extract of Opposite Party No.2, showing the amount deposited by Opposite Party No.3. Ex.B-7 is the reply notice given by Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, dated 14/06/2018 to the counsel for the Complainant. When the Complainant brought his tractor to the showroom of Opposite Party No.1 on 19/12/2017, no problem was noticed by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties demanded the Complainant to pay Rs.4,40,000/- towards sale consideration of the tractor, but the Complainant failed to pay the same. The Complainant used the tractor from 08/11/2017 to 18/12/2017 and completed his agricultural operations. The Opposite Parties noticed that there was removal of hours meter cable in the tractor in order to avoid recording of running of vehicle. The Complainant made financial loss to the Opposite Parties by not paying the balance amount within one week and after insisting the payment, the Complainant expressed his inability to pay the balance sale consideration and settled the matter with Opposite Party No.2 through some elders on 27/05/2018 at Choutuppal and received an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- from the Opposite Parties, vide Ex.B-8, i.e. Cash Voucher for receipt of Rs.1,40,000/-. There was settlement between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties, vide Agreement Ex.A-9, dated 27/05/2018, which was duly signed by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 deducted an amount of Rs.30,000/- as the said tractor was used for 40 days. The Complainant executed a document in favour of the Opposite Parties. In spite of settlement on
Contd…12
-12-
27/05/2018, the Complainant issued a legal notice Ex.A-11 to the Opposite Parties on 31/05/2018 by suppressing these material facts.
9. As the Complainant entered into settlement with the Opposite Parties on 27/05/2018 and received the amount from the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties are not liable to pay further amounts to the Complainant. The Complainant failed to prove that he sustained loss in not doing the agricultural operations and also failed to produce any evidence for the loss sustained by him due to the defective tractor nor any mechanic report and also failed to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Further, the Complainant had not disclosed about the settlement made with the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 on 27/05/2018. Therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3. Accordingly, Point No.1 answered in favour of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and against the Complainant.
10. POINTS No.2 & 3:
In the light of findings under Point No.1, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is not entitled for the claims he made in his complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 9th day of January, 2020.
FEMALE MEMBER PRESIDENT
Contd…13
-13-
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Complainant: For Opposite Parties:
Affidavit of the Complainant. Sri Battla Sanjeev Reddy,
Managing Partner of Opposite
Party No.1 filed his affidavit on
behalf of Opp.Parties No.1 to 3.
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A-1: Dt.08/11/2017 Original Estimation of Swaraj Tractor
for Rs.6,10,000/-.
Ex.A-2 Dt.08/11/2017 Original Temporary/Provisional Receipt
for Rs.80,000/- issued by OP.No.1.
Ex.A-3 Dt.23/11/2017 Original Credit Voucher for Rs.90,000/-,
issued by SBI, Ramannapet Branch.
Ex.A-4 Dt.30/11/2017 Original Temporary/Provisional Receipt
for Rs.90,000/- issued by OP.No.1.
Ex.A-5 Dt.08/11/2017 Original Delivery Challan for Vehicles,
issued by Opp.Party No.1.
Ex.A-6 Dt.08/11/2017 Original Cash/Credit Bill for Rs.4,000/-,
issued by Roomi Engineering Works,
Choutuppal.
Ex.A-7 Dt.19/12/2017 Original Cash/Credit Bill for Rs.400/-,
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-8 Dt.19/12/2017 Original Cash/Credit Bill for Rs.2,500/-,
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.A-9 Dt.19/12/2017 Original Bill for Rs.2,474.80 Ps. issued by
Rathnakara Filling Station, Ramannapet.
Ex.A-10 Dt.19/12/2017 Original Gate Pass.
Ex.A-11 Dt.31/05/2018 O/c of legal notice issued by the counsel for
Complainant to the Opposite Parties, along
with Postal Receipts.
Ex.A-12 Postal Acknowledgement Card of OP-1.
Ex.A-13 Postal Acknowledgement Card of OP-2.
Ex.A-14 Dt.14/06/2018 Reply Notice, issued by counsel for the
Opposite Parties to the counsel for the
Complainant.
Contd…14
-14-
For Opposite Parties:
Ex.B-1 Dt.08/11/2017 Original Agreement.
Ex.B-2 Dt.19/12/2017 Job Card of the vehicle.
Ex.B-3 Dt.19/12/2017 Xerox copy of Bill for Rs.400/-,
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.B-4 Dt.19/12/2017 Xerox copy of Bill for Rs.2,500/-,
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.B-5 Dt.23/11/2012 Xerox copy of Bank Pass-Book of the
Opposite Party No.3 along with statement.
Ex.B-6 Xerox copy of Bank Pass-Book of the
Opposite Party No.2 along with statement.
Ex.B-7 Dt.14/06/2018 Reply Notice, issued by counsel for the
Opposite Parties to the counsel for the
Complainant.
Ex.B-8 Dt.27/05/2018 Original Cash Voucher for Rs.1,40,000/-,
issued by Opposite Party No.1.
Ex.B-9 Dt.27/05/2018 Original Agreement of Settlement.
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
NALGONDA
