Punjab

Sangrur

CC/969/2021

Chamkaur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Oswal Tractors Coporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. G.S. Chatha

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                        Complaint No. 969

 Instituted on:   26.07.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     07.03.2024

 

 

Chamkaur Singh son of Sh. Roop Singh, resident of Kalbanjara, Tehsil Lehra, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Oswal Tractors Corporation Ltd. Patran Road, Samana, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala through its Prop.

2.     Moti Ram Jain son of Mangat Ram Jain, resident of Jain Mohalla, Samana, Distt. Patiala Prop. Of Oswal Tractors Corporation Ltd. Patran Road, Samana, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala.  

             ….Opposite party 

For the complainant:             : Shri  G.S.Chatha, Adv.              

For OP No.1                          : Exparte.

For OP No.2                          : Mohd. Izhar, Adv.

 

Quorum                                           

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER.      

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party pleading that the complainant was to purchase a new tractor for his agriculture purpose and in this regard the agent of the OP, namely, Shri Jeewan Singh visited the house of the complainant, who is the agent of the OP and the OP is authorized dealer of Swaraj Tractors. Further case of the complainant is that after finalization of the deal between the complainant and the OP for purchase of Brand new Swaraj 855 Tractor for Rs.6,50,000/-, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as booking amount and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of delivery of the tractor. As such, the complainant transferred the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- through NEFT in the account of the OP on 24.9.2020. The grievance of complainant is that even after passing of one month, the tractor was not delivered to the complainant by the OP. Further case of the complainant is that due to non delivery of the tractor by the OP, the complainant suffered heavy loss and forced to purchase a second hand tractor for his agriculture purpose. The OP did not deliver the tractor in question despite serving of legal notice upon the OP on 10.6.2021  but the OP refused to receive the legal notice. By this way, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and an amount of Rs.11,000/- as  litigation expenses.

2.             Record shows that opposite party number 1 did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against exparte on 21.09.2021.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form, that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2, that the complainant has dragged the OP number 2 into unnecessary litigation and the complaint should be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got booked the tractor with the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- but due to Covid-19 and failure of business, the OP returned the above mentioned amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in cash, as there was delay from the company to deliver the tractor. It is stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP number 2. Lastly prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             Record reveals that it is an admitted fact that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with the OP through NEFT on 24.9.2020, which fact also finds support from the copy of bank statement Ex.C-1. Ex.C-2 is the copy of legal notice served upon the OP praying refund of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- Ex.C-3 is the postal receipt. All this evidence is duly supported by the affidavit of Chamkaur Singh complainant. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 2 is that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been paid to the complainant in cash. We may mention that the OP has not produced on record any evidence showing the return of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in cash as neither any receipt from the side of complainant has been produced showing receipt of said amount of Rs.1,50,000/-.  Since the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the OPs on 24.09.2020 by NEFT from his bank account, the OPs should return the said amount on the same mode of payment, but this is not so. Though the OP number 2 has produced on record the affidavit Ex.OP2/1 of Shri Moti Ram Jain, but we are unable to accept such a contention because the OP number 2 has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support the contention that the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been returned to the complainant in cash. Even the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte. If the said amount had been returned to the complainant, then the OP number 1 should produce the cogent evidence to show return of the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant in cash. In the circumstances of the case, we find that the OPs did not return the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant and are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant. Accordingly, we find it to be a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 

6.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of deposit i.e. 24.09.2020 till its realization in full. We further direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment and litigation expenses. 

 

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

 

8.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        March 7, 2024.