BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:127 of 2016.
Date of Institution: 21.06.2016.
Date of Decision:15.11.2017
Rajbir son of Sh. Hardayal, resident of village Bidhnoi P.O. Noonsar Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
M/s Kaushik Automobiles, Loharu Road, Bhiwani through its Prop./Authorized Signatory.
...Opposite Party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Present:- None for the complainant.
Shri Satender Ghangas Advocate proxy counsel of
Shri A. Sardana, Advocate for OP.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased a new Escort Tractor bearing Model POWERTRAC 434 DS year of MFG 2015 Engine No. E 3311807 Chasis No. T053280150 for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 29.10.2015 through the OP. It is alleged that the abovesaid tractor was financed by the complainant from Induslnd Bank for Rs. 3,70,000/- and for balance amount the complainant paid either in term of cash or through by selling of a old tractor to the OP. It is alleged that at the time of purchasing of the tractor the OP assured the complainant that they have done some formalities regarding the bills and said that some time after they would hand over the complainant all the documents. It is alleged that after some time of it’s the complainant met with the OP and made a request to handover him all the relevant documents as he required to prepare R.C. etc. of the tractor. The complainant visited many a time to the office of the OP but all in vain. It is alleged that the official of the OP raised a demand of more amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent and as such he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the assertions made are false and concocted and have been engineered just to harass the answering respondent. It is submitted that the complainant failed to make the remaining payment of Rs. 58,246/- of new Tractor despite repeated request made by the answering respondent. It is submitted that the complainant later on issued a cheque bearing no. 785870 dated 7.11.2016 of Rs. 60,000/- in favour of answering respondent on account of remaining payment i.e. Rs. 58,246/- plus interest and assured that the payment of the cheque shall be made on its presentation. It is submitted that the complainant has not paid the entire payment for purchasing the new tractor and a sum of Rs. 58,246/- is still due against him since one year for remaining payment of the tractor and failed to make the payment of the same. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. In order to make out his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5.
4. In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite party has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-12 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. Case called several times since morning but none appeared on behalf of the complainant. This case is pending for the presence of the complainant and arguments, if any. From the perusal of the zimini orders, it is transpired that since 30.1.2017 complainant is not appearing in this case. It seems that the complainant is not interested to pursue his complaint. We proceed to decide this case on merits after hearing the counsel for the OP.
6. Learned counsel for the OP reiterated the contents of the reply. He submitted that the complainant purchased Escorts PT-434 DS+LM in exchange of his old Sawraj Tractor Model 1997 for Rs. 1 lakh. The complainant purchased the new Escorts Tractor from the OP for a sum of Rs. 5 lakh vide bill no. 3082 dated 1.11.2015 and after deducting the cost of Rs. 1 lakh of his old Sawraj Tractor, a sum of Rs. 3,41,754/- was paid by the financer of the complainant on 4.11.2015 and there was a balance of Rs. 58,246/-. After repeated requests of the OP, the complainant issued a cheque dated 7.11.2016 for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the OP to make the remaining payment plus interest. The said cheque was dishonoured due to the payment of the same was stopped by the complainant. He submitted that Rs. 58,246/- is still due from the complainant.
7. It has been contended by the complainant in his complaint that the Escorts Tractor was financed by the Indusind Bank for Rs. 3,70,000/- and the balance was paid by the complainant by selling his old tractor to the OP. It has been contended that the OP did not hand over the sale certificate and other documents to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP to give sale certificate and other documents for registration of the tractor with the concerned registering authority but the OP did not issue the same. When the complainant visited the OP for June 2016 a payment of Rs. 60,000/- was raised by the OP, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the complainant but the OP did not deliver the sale certificate and documents to the complainant. It has been contended that the OP charging the excess price of the tractor. The OP is liable to issue the sale certificate, bill and other documents to the complainant for the registration of his tractor.
8. In the light of the pleadings of the parties, we have gone through the record. From the pleadings of the parties, it can be gathered that the OP is claiming the balance amount of Rs.58,246/- on account of the balance amount for the sale of the tractor to the complainant and thus has not delivered the sale certificate, bill and other documents to the complainant. On the other side, the complainant has contended that he has made full payment of the tractor and the OP has charged the excess price of the tractor and OP is liable to deliver the sale certificate etc. to the complainant. The counsel for the OP has alleged that the complainant has issued a cheque dated 7.11.2016 for Rs. 60,000/- in favour of the OP and has produced the photo copy of said cheque Annexure R-7. There is a dispute between the complainant and OP regarding the amount of Rs. 58,246/- and on this pretext the OP has not delivered the sale certificate etc. to the complainant. Under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, the vehicle without a valid registration certificate cannot be plied on the road. We are of the view that the OP is liable to hand over the sale certificate, bill etc. to the complainant at the time of the delivery of the tractor to the complainant and he cannot make a lien on the documents for the balance payment, if any. Taking into account each and every aspect of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the OP. The OP is directed to deliver the sale certificate, bill and necessary documents to the complainant for the registration of the tractor in question with the concerned registering authority. However, the OP shall be at liberty to take recourse in the competent court of law regarding the disputed balance amount under the provisions of law, if so advised. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 15.11.2017. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member. Member
