Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/57/2017

Srikrishna Raithu Mithra Sangham, Rep. by its Group Leader, B.Ripunjaya, S/o Krishnaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Shanmukhi Motors, rep. by its Manager - Opp.Party(s)

P.Hemachandra Reddy

05 Oct 2018

ORDER

Filing Date: 16.11.2017

Order Date:05.10.2018

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.57/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

Srikrishna Raithu Mithra Sangham,

Rep. by its Group Leader B.Ripunjaya,

S/o. Krishnaiah,

Hindu, aged 37 years, cultivation,

Residing at:

Bramhanapalle village and post,

Vedurukuppam Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. Shanmuki Motors,

Rep. by its Manager,

Holding its office at:

D.No.11-46/2, Poolavani Gunta,

Renigunta Road,

Tirupati – 1,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.09.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.C.Jyothi Murthy, Sri.P.Hemachandra Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.M.Nagaraju, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party seeking direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- per month towards loss of hire charges from January, 2017 till the date of realization, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of delivery of the vehicle till realization towards the salaries of the drivers and the cleaner, to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards suffering mental agony due to deficiency in service, and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2. The complaint allegations are as follows:- At the instance of opposite party, the complainant purchased Mahindra Tractor Arjun NOVO 605 combine harvester for paddy, for a sum of Rs.15,95,000/- out of which Rs.7,41,514/-  was the subsidy amount granted by the Agriculture Department. The opposite party gave assurance that the said tractor is of good quality, having durability. The Joint Director of Agriculture, Chittoor, issued proceedings dt:08.11.2016 sanctioning the subsidy amount of Rs.7,41,514/- for purchase of the said tractor. The complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.8,53,486/- through demand draft dt:22.11.2016 drawn on Indian Bank, Vedurukuppam branch and the said D.D was encashed by opposite party. The registration charges of the said vehicle was also included in the quotation issued by opposite party. The tractor was delivered along with the documents to the complainant on 19.12.2016. It is the bounden duty of the opposite party to provide temporary registration number for the said vehicle from R.T.A., Tirupati, before delivery of the vehicle. While delivering the vehicle, the Agriculture Department authorities have taken photographs showing representative of opposite party, complainant and Agriculture Joint Director are shown. Opposite party has requested time to provide temporary registration number for the said vehicle at the time of delivery of the vehicle, but the opposite party has not provided temporary registration number for the vehicle despite making several requests by the complainant. Without temporary registration or regular registration of the vehicle, the complainant is not in a position to run the vehicle on road. The vehicle was kept idle though delivery is taken by the complainant. He was constrained to engage two operators / drivers besides one cleaner by paying advance amount and also paying monthly salaries for them. Having collected all necessary fees for registration and having retained material papers with them, the opposite party failed to fulfill the obligation of obtaining temporary registration for the vehicle. The complainant has been paying Rs.20,000/- to each driver and Rs.8,0000/- to the cleaner, but he sustained loss because he is unable to run the vehicle. The act of opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service, as the complainant sustained huge monitory loss. There are no latches on the part of complainant. He caused legal notice dt:04.03.2017 to the opposite party calling upon them to provide registration number within 3 days from the date of receipt of legal notice and also to make good loss sustained by the complainant from the date of purchase of the vehicle till furnishing registration number. Having acknowledged the said notice, opposite party had issued reply notice dt:15.04.2017 with false contentions. Hence, complainant having left with no option filed the complaint before this Forum.

            3.  Opposite party filed the written version contending as follows:- At the outset complaint allegations are denied. When the vehicle was purchased, automatically temporary registration will be given and hence question of providing temporary registration for the vehicle does not arise. When the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions of the hypothecation, he is bound to pay the monthly installments, for which complainant has no say on it. The opposite party accepted to arrange the vehicle, as complainant made repeated requests to them, but due to some difficulties original papers could not be processed and at last they got the papers and sent the same to complainant, but he did not receive the same. Hence, the documents were sent by way of registered post to complainant on 18.03.2017 with acknowledgement due. Though the postal authorities requested the complainant to take delivery of the said registered post from 20.03.2017 to 23.03.2017, the complainant failed to take delivery of the same and at last refused to receive the registered post on 23.06.2017. In the said cover, the opposite party mentioned that the cover contains temporary registration original papers. It appears that the complainant had seen them, but refused to take delivery of the papers. Subsequently, the opposite party received notice from complainant, for which reply was given. As per the notice of the complainant he needed temporary registration documents, which were sent but the same was returned by him. Hence, question of deficiency in service does not arise. There is no legal embargo on the opposite party in payment of any of the claims and there was no express terms and conditions between the complainant and opposite party and this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Complainant filed chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Chief affidavit and written arguments are not filed by the opposite party. Complainant filed the written arguments.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint?

            6.  Point:-  From the written version filed by the opposite party and evidence affidavit and documentary evidence filed by the complainant, there is no dispute that the complainant had purchased Mahindra Tractor Harvester under subsidy scheme launched by Agriculture Department. The Agriculture Department granted subsidy of Rs.7,41,514/- out of Rs.15,95,000/-, which is the cost of the tractor and remaining amount of Rs.8,53,486/- was paid by P.W.1 through D.D (photocopy of which is marked as Ex.A2). The contention of the complainant is that as per the terms and conditions, the opposite party from whom the tractor was purchased by the complainant has to provide temporary registration for the said vehicle from R.T.A., Tirupati, and that they failed to fulfill the said obligation due to which P.W.1 could not run the tractor and sustained loss, as he had to pay salaries to the drivers and cleaner. The complainant therefore claimed Rs.20,000/- towards salary to each driver and Rs.8,000/- towards salary of the cleaner and further claimed Rs.1,00,000/- per month for sustaining loss, for not able to run the tractor. Absolutely, no evidence is placed before this Forum to show that he engaged two drivers and cleaner and was paying salaries to them. In the affidavit filed by P.W.1, at one place he stated that he was not in a position to run the vehicle as the temporary registration had not provided by the opposite party and at one place he says that he engaged drivers and cleaner for running the tractor. No prudent person will engage driver and cleaner when he is not in a position to run the tractor. Hence, the contention of complainant that he paid salaries to drivers and cleaner without running the vehicle cannot be believed.

            7.  It is true that the complainant had not filed the terms and conditions of purchasing the vehicle. Ex.A5 is reply noticed issued by counsel for opposite party wherein it is denied that the opposite party failed to provide temporary registration and got registered the vehicle with RTA concerned at Tirupati. At para.6 of Ex.A5 the opposite party stated that due to some difficulties the papers could not be processed and at last the same were processed and got the papers and send the same to the complainant, but he refused to receive the same and as such the documents were sent to complainant by way of register post on 18.03.2017 with acknowledgement due, but the complainant failed to take delivery of the said register post, though the postal authorities waited from 20.03.2017 to 23.03.2017 to deliver the register post, and further opposite party in Ex.A5 mentioned that the cover contains temporary registration original papers. It is therefore contended by the opposite party that the complainant deliberately refused to take delivery of the register post for the reasons best known to him. In view of reply notice under Ex.A5, opposite party is not disputing that they have to process the registration of the vehicle and handing-over the temporary registration original papers to the complainant. If really the contention of opposite party that the complainant deliberately avoided to receive the register post containing the registration papers is true, nothing prevented the opposite party to file the returned registered cover in the Forum to prove the same, but the opposite party did not file the chief affidavit, written arguments and any documents to refute the allegations made by the complainant. Hence, the contention of complainant that he is not in a position to run the tractor due to not supplying of temporary registration original papers by opposite party has to be accepted. To that extent we of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the present complaint, the complainant did not ask for direction to opposite party to send the temporary original papers relating to the tractor in question, But even though such relief is not asked, we are of the view that the opposite party can be directed to supply the original registration papers relating to the tractor in question.

            8.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to supply the original temporary registration papers relating to Mahindra Tractor Arjun NOVO 605, and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards mental agony caused to the complainant, as he could not run the tractor due to non-supply of vehicle registration documents. Further the opposite party has to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards litigation expenses. The order shall be complied by opposite party within 8 weeks, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.    

           Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 5^th day of October, 2018.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                           

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:  B. Ripunjaya              (Evidence/Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-2:  G. Govindaiah                        (Evidence/Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-3:  B. Umakar Reddy      (Evidence/Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: B. Nagarjuna              (Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATE issued by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Agriculture Department, Chittoor. Dt: 08.11.2016.
	Photo copy of Demand Draft in favour of the 1st opposite party. Dt: 22.11.2016.
	Photograph of the vehicle at the time of delivery along with received letter by the ryoths, Srikrishna Raithu Mithra Sangham, Bramhana Palle Village & Post, Vedurukuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. Dt: 19.12.2016.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with Postal Receipts. Dt: 04.03.2017.
	Reply Notice from the 1st opposite party. Dt: 15.04.2017.

 

 

Authorization letter in favour of Group Leader B. Ripunjaya given by the group members.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

    

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

         Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

      

    

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.