Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/150

Kedar Nath Swarnkar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shiv Tractor Prop. Ajit Kumar Kashyap - Opp.Party(s)

Dadan Singh

22 May 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bokaro

Date of Filing-05-12-2018

Date of final hearing-16-05-2023

 Date of Order-22-05-2023

Case No. 150/2018

Ashok Nath Swarnkar S/o Kedar Nath Swarnkar,

 R/o Village + P.O. Swang, P.S. Gomiya,

District Bokaro, Jharkhand

                                      Vrs.

1. M/S Shiv Tractors, Prop. Ajit Kumar Kashyap (Escort and Powertrac Dealer) Jharkhand Gramin Bank, Matro Market, Peterwar Jharkhand

2. M/s Gourav Enterprises, Pawer Tractor & Parts Dealer, Sandi Bharchu Nager, District Ramgarh, Jharkhand

3. Sri Ram Transport Co. Ltd. Phusro Branch, Bokaro

4. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd.

GE Plaza, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-41106

Present:-

                             Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Sr.Member

                  Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

PER- J.P.N Pandey, President

-:Order:-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer to pass order against the O.Ps. to pay total price of the Tractor Rs. 7,00,000/- with 12% per annum interest on it since 16.12.2017, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as legal expense to the complainant.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that he purchased a tractor on Rs. 5,30,000/- after payment of Rs. 60,000/- cash and on obtaining loan of Rs. 4,70,000/- from Sri Ram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. Phusro Branch, Bokaro  (O.P. No.3) on 03.12.2017 from O.P. No.1 M/s Sheo Tractors, Petarwar, Bokaro through M/s Gourav Enterprises, Ramgarh (O.P. No.2) and on demand of the papers O.P. No.1 told that he has submitted all the papers in the office of D.T.O. Bokaro. Further case is that complainant paid three monthly installment of the loan @ Rs. 46,331/- per month to the O.P. No.3 and on demand O.P. No. 1 provided photo copy of the papers of the vehicle, insurance policy, invoice bill of O.P. No.2 in which Chassis Number of the vehicle has been mentioned B32056440 and Engine Number has been mentioned E3229303 instead of actual Engine Number E3228303 which is engrafted on the engine of the vehicle concerned.
3. Further case of the complainant is that since the actual engine number of the vehicle was different and it was different on the paper which was not in accordance with the actual number hence complainant contacted all the O.Ps. for rectification of engine number then they assured to provide registration papers after rectification of engine number but it was not provided, later on they assured to provide another vehicle which was also not provided and due to it complainant became unable to pay the EMIs of the loan and for want of papers he was unable to run the vehicle, hence said vehicle is lying at the door of the complainant since several years. Further case is that complainant gave information to Police having no impact hence lastly he has filed this case before this Forum with above mentioned prayer.
4. Record shows that O.P. No.1 appeared in this case on 22.06.2022 but he has not filed W.S. within statutory period hence vide order dt. 17.08.2022 he has been debarred from filing W.S. In this way O.P. No.1 has avoided to defend him.
5. Inspite of due service of notice O.P. No.2 preferred not to appear before this Commission hence vide order dt. 13.10.2022 case is being proceeded ex-parte against him.
6. O.P. No.3 (Financer) has filed W.S. mentioning therein that he is not necessary party in the present case who is having no role after disbursement of the loan amount in favour of the complainant and allegation in relation to mismatching of the engine number in the documents of the tractor said to supplied by the O.P. No. 1& 2 to the complainant is not related to this O.P. Further reply is that only to escape from outstanding dues of Rs. 13,51,349/- as on 04.04.2022 with future interest and charges, this O.P. has been made party inspite of the fact that complainant is having possession of the tractor and using it. Loan has been sanctioned as per norms of the RBI after execution of mutual agreement dt. 20.12.2017 accordingly O.P. No.1 has supplied the tractor from his showroom at Petarwar, Bokaro and complainant requested O.P. No.1 for supply of the papers. So far, mismatch of the engine number is concerned this O.P. is having no role on it and other facts of the complaint petition are being denied.
7. O.P. No.4 Insurance Co. has filed W.S. mentioning therein that the insurance co. is having no role to play in the present case and there is no cause of action against this O.P. because there is no contract of insurance between the complainant and this O.P. as because the cheque deposited for issuance of insurance policy was dishonored and consequently policy was cancelled with intimation to the complainant vide letter dt. 22.12.2017 and also with intimation to the RTO concerned. Further reply is that this O.P. No.4 never received any request from the complainant regarding any complaint nor any Police officer has approached this O.P. hence this case is liable to be dismissed against this O.P. Further reply is that vehicle concerned is not covered under insurance with this O.P.
8. Point for consideration is whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?
9. To prove its case complainant has produced photo copy of letters dt. 24.09.2018, 31.08.2018, 25.09.2018 written to Gourav Enterprises, Ramgarh, finance Co., Escort company, Faridabad, Haryana intimating about discrepancy in the actual engine number and the engine number mentioned on the papers supplied and the difficulty being faced by the complainant due to it. He has also filed photo copy of applications dt. 26.09.2018, 17.11.2018 written to O/c Petarwar P.S and SDPO, Bermo, Tenughat respectively for taking action in respect to act of the O.Ps. related to supply of the papers containing wrong engine number causing difficulty to play the vehicle on the road. Complainant has also filed photo copy of summary of loans for vehicle paper, receipt, tax invoice provided by Grorav Enterprises showing that engine number of the vehicle has been mentioned E3229303 on the tax invoice dt. 16.12.2017 in which total price of the vehicle has been shown Rs. 5,90,000/-.
10. Complainant has also filed photo copy of the insurance policy, photo copy of one hand written paper dt. 28.12.2017, photo copy of Challan indent dt. 03.12.2017 issued by M/s Sheo Tractors, photo copy of the paper showing serial number, chassis number and engine number of the tractor concerned issued from the manufacturing company, photo copy of pencil print of the chassis number and engine number of the vehicle concerned and paper showing vehicle history obtained from internet to show that the tractor with engine number E3228303, Chassis number B3205640 has already been sold to one Shatish Kumar of village- Kujju, Distt.- Ramgarh on 20.04.2013.
11. On other hand O.P. No.3 has produced photo copy of the insurance policy, photo copy of tax invoice dt. 16.12.2017 issued by Gourav Enterprises, photo copy of Quotation dt. 07.12.2017 issued by same agency, photo copy of rent receipt, photo copy of statement of the insurance co., photo copy of bank passbook of the complainant, photo copy of Adhar Card of the complainant, photo copy of tax invoice cum acknowledgment receipt of PAN application and photo copy of PAN, Adhar of Nawal Kishor Prajapapti as well as photo copy of declaration of good health form of the complainant.
12. As oral evidence complainant has examined a witness namely Kedar Nath Swarnkar who has stated about the facts of the case during his examination in chief on affidavit and during cross examination he states that the tractor was provided by O.P. No.1 and its papers were provided by O.P. No.2. Further he states that he has given information to the O.P. No.1 regarding mismatch of the engine number of the tractor. Further he states that he does not know about dishonor of cheque related to insurance policy.
13. On behalf of O.P. No.4 (Insurance Co.) photo copy of letter dt. 22.12.2017 has been filed through which complainant and RTO have been informed regarding cancellation of the insurance policy because of dishonor of the cheque supplied for issuance of the policy.
14. Except above mentioned evidence no any other evidence either oral or documentary has been filed/given by any of the parties.
15. On careful perusal of pleadings of the parties it is very much apparent that the fact related to mismatch of the engine number of the tractor concerned has not been denied by any of the O.Ps. In this way it is not in controversy that there is mismatch of the engine number in between actual engine number and the engine number mentioned on the papers supplied to the complainant. Complainant has taken steps for correction of the engine number but O.P. No.1 , 2  & 3 failed to get it be corrected. No doubt on cancellation of the insurance policy on 22.12.2017 the liability of the insurance co. ends rather it will be said that insurance co. (O.P. No.4) is having no liability in respect to present case. Further for want of correct papers registration of the vehicle concerned has not been made before the transport authority of the State.
16. In light of above discussion it is apparent that O.P. No.1 & 2 are deficient in service in correction of the papers containing wrong engine number of the vehicle concerned. Similarly the liability of the O.P. No.3 Finance Co. is not limited to sanction of the loan rather finance co. is also responsible to insure that correct goods (Tractor) are being supplied or not against the sanction of the loan and after getting full satisfaction of the correct supply of the goods the finance co. is suppose to disburse the amount in favour of the supplier of the goods i.e. the agency of the vehicle concerned. Here in this case financer has not insured regarding correct supply of the goods rather without correct supply of the goods in other words on wrong supply of the goods financer has disbursed the amount in favour of the supplier (Shop Keeper of the tractor). Therefore, we are of the view that O.P. No. 1,2 & 3 are equally liable for the deficiency in service with the complainant. Accordingly this point is being decided in favour of the complainant.
17. Accordingly prayer of the complainant is being allowed in the fallowing manner:-

O.P. No.1 and 2 M/s Shiv Tractors Peterwar and M/s Gaurav Enterprises Sandi Bharuch Nagar, Ramgarh are directed to provide correct papers of the tractor to the complainant within 30 days from receipt/ production of the copy of this order in accordance with the correct Engine No. E3228303 ( which has been engrafted on the Engine supplied to the complainant ).

In case of failure in supply of correct papers of the tractor concerned within above mentioned period the O.P. No.1 and 2 shall pay Rs. 470000/- (The loan amount) to the O.P. No.3 and Rs. 60000 the margin money + 46327 the first installment of the loan already paid by the complainant to the financer = Rs 106327 and any other amount paid by the complainant to O.P. No.1 and 2 in addition to above amount i.e the amount related to margin money and loan installment, on production of proper receipt within further 45 days as mentioned above after return of the tractor concerned to these O.P. No.1 and 2 In the facts and circumstance of the case parties shall bear their own costs.

 

 

•                                                                                                                                                                                                     S/d

(J.P.N. Pandey)

                                                                                      President

 

                                                                                        S/d

(B.P.L Das)

   Sr. Member

                                                                            

                                                                                    S/d

                                                                               (Baby Kumari)

•