Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/32/2013

G.Ashok Kumar S/o. G.Bhaktavatsala Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sriram Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

R.Madhusudhan Rao

07 Jan 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:09.04.2013

Order Date: 07.01.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.32/2013

 

Between

 

G.Ashok Kumar,

S/o. G.Bhaktavatsala Naidu,

Aged about 36 years, Cultivation,

Residing at Danamurthipalle village,

Kasipentla post,

Chandragiri mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         M/s. Sriram Enterprises,

            Authorized Dealer for John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

            19-3-1K, Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         M/s. John Deere Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,

            Tower-14, Magar Patta City,

            Hadapsar,

            Pune – 411 013.                                                                    …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 30.12.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.R.Madhusudhan Rao, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the opposite party No.1, and opposite party No.2 remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant G.Ashok Kumar against the opposite parties 1 and 2, praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties a) to provide spare parts and to pay a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- i.e. a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- spent towards spare parts and a sum of Rs.50,000/- spent towards penalty; b) to direct the opposite parties to pay another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and loss, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- per day from the date of seizure of the vehicle i.e. from 19.01.2012, till date of release of the vehicle from the registration department and c) to direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of the complaint.

            2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- that the complainant purchased John Deere Standard Harvester (Tractor) from the opposite parties for Rs.14,00,000/- for his day to day cultivation and harvesting. On 15.02.2011 vide Invoice No.JD 092 (Ex.A1). The said vehicle was delivered to the complainant with a temporary registration No.AP 03 TQ TR 7457. The opposite parties have mentioned in Sale Certificate (Ex.A8) the unladen weight of the vehicle as 2100 kgs, as against its actual weight of 6510 kgs, because of wrong particulars mentioned in the Sale Certificate, the vehicle was seized by the registration department and collected penalty of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant. That the opposite party has given a tool kit at the time of delivery of the vehicle but it contains no spare parts, that he was forced to purchase spare parts by spending Rs.2,00,000/-. Thus the opposite parties have caused mental agony because of their deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.2 remained exparte.

            4.  The opposite party No.1 filed written version admitting the purchase of Tractor Driven Combined Harvester under temporary registration No. AP 03 TQ TR 7457 by the complainant. They also further admitted that the complainant has paid Rs.7,15,000/- for the tractor and Rs.6,85,000/- for the harvester, totaling a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- on 15.02.2011, that the unladen weight of the tractor alone was furnished as per the A.P.Transport Website and not at own accord. Opposite party No.1 is not aware whether the complainant has purchased tractor and harvester for his own use, as the complainant has not disclosed about the land holdings. Therefore, the opposite party No.1 not liable to pay refund of the claim. The tractor was purchased under 2 years warranty or 2000 hours, whichever is earlier against manufacturing defects. That the complaint is belated and vexatious and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            5.  Both complainant and opposite party No.1 have filed their respective chief affidavits as well as written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B4 for the opposite party. Heard the counsel for both the parties

            6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the opposite parties have furnished unladen weight of the Tractor

                  Driven Combined Harvester as 2100 kgs as alleged by the complainant?

            (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iii)  To what relief?  

            7.  Point No.(i):-   In order to answer this point, the opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant has purchased a Tractor Driven Combined Harvester from opposite party No.1, who is the agent of opposite party No.2. The said Tractor Driven Combined Harvester is having temporary registration No. AP 03 TQ TR 7457, its Engine No.PY3029D256829 and Chassis No.PY531OSO61668. Admittedly, the tractor was delivered to the complainant under Invoice No.JD092 dt:15.02.2011 on collecting Rs.14,00,000/- from the complainant towards cost of the vehicle. The dispute is whether the opposite parties have mentioned unladen weight of the tractor as 2100 kgs. According to the Sale Certificate (Ex.A8), the unladen weight of the vehicle i.e. tractor driven combined harvester is shown as 2100 kgs. Similarly in column.13 of Ex.A8 the gross vehicle weight is shown as 2100 kgs, other details of the vehicle is not in dispute. Ex.A8 is issued by opposite party No.1. As could be seen from Ex.A5, the unladen weight of the vehicle is 6570 kgs. As per Ex.A4 also discloses the gross weight of the vehicle as 6850 kgs. Ex.A4 is issued by Sri Balaji Weigh Bridge. So it shows that the unladen weight furnished under Ex.A8 Sale Certificate is not correct, which amounts to unfair trade practice, consequent upon the vehicle was said to have been seized by the transport authorities since less weight is mentioned in the Sale Certificate with regard to the tractor driven combined harvester, which was sold to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was forced to pay penalty. Therefore, the opposite parties are responsible for the loss caused to the complainant. Accordingly this point is answered.

            8. Point No.(ii):-  Since the opposite parties have admitted the sale transactions between the complainant and opposite parties dt:15.02.2011 under Ex.A1 invoice  and also the sale certificate under Ex.A8, whatever defects in the sale certificate or the invoice are to be make good by the opposite parties themselves. So far as tool kit / tool box is concern the request of the complainant cannot be accepted, as Ex.B3 clearly shows the tools handed over to the complainant at the time of delivering the vehicle. Ex.B3 contains the signature of the complainant with an endorsement received harvester with tools railing set. Therefore, he cannot dispute Ex.B3 about 2 years after the purchase. If at all, the tool kit did not contain any tools, it is open to the complainant to raise such objections, if any, at the time of taking delivery of the vehicle and taking tool kit / tool box, having acknowledged that he received tool kit with the items mentioned specifically under Ex.B3, he cannot now agitate that no tools were contained in the tool box. Accordingly this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the cost of the tool kit or the alleged amount spent towards tools, as the complainant failed to file any scrap of paper in support of this contention. So far as the furnishing of wrong particulars i.e. unladen weight of the vehicle under weighing as 2100 kgs is concerned, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for making such false statement in the Sale Certificate. Section-2(i)(r) of the C.P.Act defines the unfair trade practice as:

“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely: (1) the practice of making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation which, - (i) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard quality, quantity, grade, composition style or model;

          

            In the case on hand, the quantity i.e. which implies the weight of the vehicle is represented wrongly in the Sale Certificate.

            10.  Protection from unfair trade practice, this has been provided by the amended Act-50 of 1993, which ensures protection to consumer against unfair trade practice of traders. The term unfair trade practice has been used in the same sense as used under Section-36(A) of Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practice Act 1969. The purpose of the Act has been extended in protecting the consumers by covering the “unfair trade practice” with the purview of this Act, as such furnishing underweight or wrong weight of the tractor driven combined harvester in Sale Certificate under Ex.A8 by the opposite party No.1 attracts the definition of unfair trade practice. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for the said defect / unfair trade practice, by which mental agony is caused to the complainant. That the opposite parties also liable to pay costs of the complaint. Accordingly this complaint is to be allowed in part.

            11.  Point No.(iv):-  In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards compensation for furnishing wrong particulars of the vehicle and also a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within six (6) weeks from the date of this order along with interest on Rs.20,000/- at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till the date of realization. Rest of the claim is rejected, as no proof is filed to establish when the vehicle was seized by the registering authorities, how many days they retained the vehicle and when the vehicle was released.      

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 7^th day of January, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                          

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

PW-1: G.Ashok Kumar S/o. G.Bhaktavatsala Naidu (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

RW-1: R.Srinivasa Rao S/o. Ramachandra Rao (Evidence Affidavit filed). 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	15.02.2011	Photo copy of Invoice for purchase of vehicle filed on behalf of the complainant.
2	21.01.2013	Office copy of Notice with Original postal receipts filed on behalf of the complainant.
3	11.02.2013	True copy of Reply Notice of opposite party No.1 filed on behalf of the complainant.
4	16.06.2014	Original Receipt Issued by the Sri Balaji Weigh Bridge, Tirupati.
5	28.03.2011	Original copy of B-Register Extract issue by Additional Registering Authority, Tirupati.
6	28.03.2011	Photocopy of Registration certificate.
7	23.01.2013	Photo copy of Tax-cum-penalty receipt.
8	15.02.2011	Photo copy of Form-21(Sale Certificate) issued by Sriram Enterprises, Tirupati.
9		Brochure showing the features of John Deere Tractors.

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	15.02.2011	True copy of Sale certificate.
2	11.02.2013	Photocopy of reply to Legal Notice.
3	15.02.2011	Photo copy of Acknowledgement copy for spare parts.
4	01.04.2010	Dealership for STANDARD HARVESTER TSC-513.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-     

                                                                                                                President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.