M/S SAME DEUTZ PAHAR INDIA (P) LTD V/S KONIDALA RAMMOHAN RAO - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/923/07

KONIDALA RAMMOHAN RAO - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SAME DEUTZ PAHAR INDIA (P) LTD - Opp.Party(s)

MR.K.MANMADHA RAO

15 Sep 2009

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/923/07

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Chittoor-II at triputi)

1. KONIDALA RAMMOHAN RAO

BALAJI AGRO INDUSTRIES ONGOLE

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DIPSUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

F.A.No.770/2006 against C.D.No.10/2005, Dist. Forum, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole.

Between:

M/s. Same Deutz- Fahr India (P) Ltd., 72,

SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Rani Pet,

Tamilnadu – 632 403, rep. by its

Authorized Representative ,

G.G.Vijayakumar. …. Appellant/

Opp.party

And

M/s. Balaji Agro Industries,

Lower Pet, Ongole, Rep. by its

Prop. Konidala Rammohana Rao. … Respondent /

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri N.V.S.J.Rama Rao

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Manmadha Rao

F.A.No.923/2007 against C.D.No.10/2005, Dist. Forum, Prakasam Dist. at Ongole.

Konidala Rammohana Rao,

Prop. Balaji Agro Industries, Ongole. …Appellant/

Complainant

And

M/s. Same Deutz – Pahar India (P)

Limited, Ranipet, Tamilnadu -632 403 … Respondent/

Opp.party

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K.Manmadha Rao

Counsel for the Respondents : -

CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

SRI K.SATYANAND HON,BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

***

F.A.no.770/2006

Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.10/2005 on the file of District Forum Prakasam Dist at Ongole, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are as follows:

The complainant submits that he has been appointed as a dealer for the opposite party for selling of the ‘Same Tractors’ and the dealership is in the name of ‘SRI BALAJI AGRO INDUSTRIES:: ONGOLE. The complainant submits that he paid Rs.2 lakhs on 27.5.2000 under cheque no. 424149 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.5.2000 vide cheque no. 424150. On 18.8.2001 the complainant sent a D.D. for Rs.2 lakhs in the name of the opposite party towards advance payment for purchase of two tractors and on 31.8.2001 the complainant sent one tractor as per the invoice valued at

Rs.3,15,888/-.The complainant received the second tractor as per the invoice dt.6.11.2001 valued at Rs.2,71,378/- besides spare tyres including rims valued at Rs.39,132/-. In all the complainant submits that he received the goods worth Rs.6,26,398/-.The complainant submits that he opened a showroom in Ongole spending lot of money and inspite of his best efforts he could not sell the tractors and was forced to returned the tractors to the opposite party . Taking back the tractor, the opposite party issued a cheque for Rs.3,80,482 /- on 30.7.2004. Still as per the understanding between the complainant and opposite party, opposite party has to pay Rs.3,25,000/-.The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.29.8.2004 to the opposite party requesting him to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,70,000/- together with interest for which the opposite party did not give reply. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,85,000/- together with interest at 24% p.a. along with compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and costs of the complaint.

Opposite party filed counter stating that the complainant purchased tractors on 31.8.2001 and on 6.11.2001 respectively and the opposite party requested the complainant to take back the said tractors after two years on the ground that he could not sell the same in the market. In order to maintain cordial relations and in good faith, opposite party had agreed to take back the said tractors after adjusting the depreciation for two years, sales tax of Rs.22,587/- along with the debit balance due to the tune of Rs.1,76,399/- as on 12.4.04. The sales tax charges shall be borne by the complainant as he returned the tractors after two years. This arrangement was made by way of memorandum of understanding dt. 12.4.2004 between both parties and the same was signed by both parties for full and final settlement. Pursuant to the said MOU a sum of Rs.3,80,482/- has been paid to the complainant after deducting depreciation and sales tax and the same was received by the complainant. He further contends that the petition is barred by limitation since the purchase of tractors was made way back in 31.8.01 and 6.11.01 respectively and the complainant is not a consumer since he purchased the tractors for commercial purpose.

Based on the evidence adduced Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.B1 to B4 allowed the petition directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @ 10% p.a. from 18.8.2001 and to pay amount of Rs.44,543/- with an interest @ 10% p.a. from 30.7.2004 till the date of realization and opp.party is entitled to deduct Rs.44,000/- towards depreciation of the tractors and also entitled to deduct Rs.23,587/- towards sales tax and Rs.5000/- towards incidental charges from the amount payable to the complainant. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards costs of the litigation.

Aggrieved by the said order , the opposite party preferred this appeal.

Heard both sides . The facts not in dispute are that the complainant was given dealership by the opposite party and that he has paid an amount of Rs.3 lakhs towards security deposit out of which Rs.2 lakhs was paid on 27.5.2000 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 31.5.2000. The complainant sent DD for Rs.2 lakhs towards advance payment. It is evidenced in Ex.A1 in which it is stated that security deposit of Rs.3 lakhs will carry interest of 10% annually. It is the case of the complainant that two tractors taken by him and as he could not sell them he had returned them. Opposite party submit that the complainant accepted full and final settlement under Ex.B1

dt.12.4.2004 and that he has paid an amount of Rs.3,80,482/- . The District Forum went through this Ex.B1 document and observed that sentence ‘full and final settlement’ is absent. The District Forum addressed itself to limitation and observed that the amount has been paid by the opposite party by way of cheque on 30.7.2004 and therefore cause of action starts from that date and the complaint was filed on 23.12.2004. With respect to the contention of the opposite party that he is not a consumer, we observe that the complainant herein has deposited the amount only by way of security deposit and since he has returned the tractors to the opposite party as per Ex.A1 agreement he is entitled to return of the amount with 10% p.a. We observe from the calculation memo filed by both the parties that depreciation of Rs.88,090/- has been reduced to Rs.44,000/- by the District Forum since both these vehicles were new and kept at the showroom have not been used. We find no grounds to interfere with this calculation made by the District Forum. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Time for compliance four weeks.

F.A.No.923/2007:

The complainant filed F.A.No.923/2007 seeking enhancement of amount awarded by the District Forum. The contention of the complainant is that sales tax amount cannot be deducted since the tractor was kept in the shown room and as the same could not be sold the question of sales tax does not arise and since the tractor was not used the question of depreciation does not arise. We are of the considered view that since the vehicles were returned to the opposite party only after two years, deducting reasonable depreciation is justifiable. Since the vehicle was left in the showroom of the manufacturer the sales take amount is included in the invoice and the District Forum has rightly observed that Rs.23,587/- is to be deducted towards the sales tax. Hence this appeal fails since the complainant could not establish any substantial ground for enhancement of compensation . We observe from Ex.B1 that full and final satisfaction words were not present but still sentence ‘we agree for the above settlement’ is present. The complainant has submitted that as per Ex.A1 agreement he is entitled to interest at 10% p.a. and that the amount paid by the opposite party was accepted under protest and that the opposite party has promised to pay the balance amount later. Having agreed for deduction of sales tax and as the District Forum has already reduced depreciation from Rs.88,090/- to Rs. 44,000/- we are of the considered view there are no grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum.