Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/122/2013

Appagunta Penchalaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.Suresh Reddy,Rythumitra Tractors - Opp.Party(s)

K.Rameshreddy

17 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :13-12-2013

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:17-08-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the  17^th day of   August, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.122/2013

 

Appagunta Penchalaih,

S/o.Venkaiah, Age 50 years,

Padamatipalem (V),

Sangam (M), Nellore District.                                                            ..… Complainant        

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	P. Suresh Reddy, Rythumitra Tractors, Opposite to Reliance Office, Padugupadu Main Road, Padugupadu Village, Kovur Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.
2.	Jagadeesh Singh Ragaputra, Officer,  L & T Finance Limited, D.No.23-11-1375, 2nd floor, Vedayapalem, Nellore-4.                                                             . .…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 07-08-2015  before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Kakuturu Ramesh Reddy, advocate for the complainant and                                                  Sri. T.Manohar, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and Sri.T.V. Srinivasa Rao, advocate for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMEBR)

 

            The brief averments of the complaint are that  the complainant is an agriculturist.  The 1^st opposite party, who is  an authorized dealer of John Deere Tractors running under the name and style of  Rythumitra  Tractors situated at Jyothi Nagar, Vedayapalem, Nellore and its branch office at Vinjamuru and Kavali.   The 1^st opposite party   assured the complainant  that he would arrange finance from the  2^nd opposite party   for purchasing of  new tractor by taking   used tractor of the complainant deducting the value  at Rs.2,15,000/-  from the  total cost of new tractor Rs.6,30,000/-.  Accordingly, complainant paid Rs.5,000/- towards  advance amount to the 1^st opposite party.  On 17-10-2012, the  opposite parties 1 and 2 obtained signatures of the complainant  said to be arranging finance for the balance amount of the cost price of the tractor and further the opposite parties also demanded to pay Rs.30,000/- cash for the purpose of registration of the said tractor.  On the demand of the opposite party, the complainant  paid  amount of Rs.30,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and taken delivery  bearing  chassis No.IPY5042DJCA002299   and  engine No.3029D312633. of the John Deere Tractor on                      17-10-2012 to the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 and 2 kept the original invoice and other material papers  for the purpose of submitting them before registering authority.  But the opposite parties have not registered the said tractor and not given the registration papers inspite of made requests by postponing by  saying something or other.   Further, the 2^nd opposite party demanding to pay instalments by way of threatening the complainant that to  take away the tractor from him.  Since the tractor  kept idle  on account of non-registration by the opposite parties and the complainant had engaged another tractor for cultivating his lands on  rental basis.  Due to the acts of opposite parties 1 and 2, complainant could not run his tractor since date of purchase  and inspite of made several requests for registration.  The opposite parties failed to comply the request  and hence complainant is filed complaint against  the opposite parties 1 and  2  for deficiency of service and seeking relief as prayed for  in the complaint.

 

 2.        On the other hand, the opposite party No.1 resisted the complaint and denied all the allegations  made in the complaint except that complainant  is an agriculturist. The 1^st opposite party  submitted that he was an employee under the dealer of John Deere Company by name Bana Nageswara Reddy, who is running the John Deere tractor for sale under the name and style of Rythumitra tractors at Padugupadu and Vinjamuru.  Further, the opposite party No.1 stated that the complainant purchased the said tractor and paid sum of Rs.5,000/- as an advances after deducting the  old  tractor costs  and further he was in a due of Rs.4,10,000/- for which he obtained loan from second opposite party.  As regards to the registration of the vehicle, it will be looking after only by the second opposite party and the dealer of the complainant. As such, he is nothing to do with the prayer sought by the complainant since he was an employee only and after  watching up of the business by the dealer,  the opposite party cameout from the employment  as early as  on December, 2012.   The opposite party No.1 further stated that  if at all any grievance, the complainant has to approach  John Deere  Company and the  dealer concern but not opposite party No.1.  Since, they are not brought on record as necessary parties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.  Further, the complainant is not a consumer to this opposite party as opposite party No.1 is only an employee under  the authorized dealer of John Deere  Company and hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party with costs.

 

            3.         The second opposite party called absent since 10-06-2014 continuously and no representation on its behalf till 07-08-2015 i.e., the date of reserved for orders.

            4.         Basing on the above pleadings, the point for determination would  be

1. “Whether there is  any deficiency in service  on the part of opposite parties  if so, whether the  complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
2. To what relief?

 

            5.         In order to substantiate  the complainants averments, the complainant has not filed evidence on affidavits of the complainant from the date 23-07-2014 till the date of 07-08-2015, the chief affidavit of the complainant not filed. The complainant is continuously absent  and it is deemed that there is no interest to get on with the matter.  On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party filed evidence on affidavit as R.W.1  and no exhibit marked on his side.  Both parties not filed written arguments as stipulated under mandatory provisions.  Apparently, on the base of evidence filed by the 1^st opposite party, this Forum decided to pass orders on merits.

 

6.  POINT No.1:   Before proceeding to decide on this aspect, a blank reading of sec.13(ii) of Consumer Protection Act would highlight the fact that a Consumer Dispute under the Act can be settled by the District Forum only on the basis of some evidence.    Clause(2),Sec.13(ii) clearly lays down even where the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case before the Forum, the matter has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to his notice by the complainant, itself.  Thus, even in the ex-parte proceedings the decision of the Forum has to necessarily rest on the basis of evidence.  Obviously, it would be mere so where the opposite party comes forward to deny or dispute the allegations made in the complaint such a situation was governed by clause (i) of section 13 of Consumer Protection Act and by the statutory mandate such a consumer disputes can only settled on the basis of evidence adduced by the complainant or the opposite parties. In a contested dispute, a decision of the District Forum has to rest on the basis of evidence.  Further the orders of the redressal Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are quasi judicial have to be based on acceptable evidence.

 

7.    In the instant case, there was no evidence placed by the complainant before this Forum except filed complaint along with supported affidavit. From the  date of 23-07-2014 till the date of 07-08-2015, the chief affidavit of the complainant not filed and when the complainant called he was absent and no representation on his side.  Even though, adequate opportunity was afforded by the District Forum to the complainant to represent his case on evidence, he failed to place evidence to rebuttal the evidence of opposite party.  

 

8.      Hence, the case is proceeded with according to merits of the case. In such a case very particularly where there is no evidence from the complainant, we find no ground to award any relief to the complainant.

 

9.     At the cost of repetition, we find no hesitation to conclude that we cannot attribute any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  As has been pointed above the answer to the question posed at the outside is referred in the inactive and statutory mandate of the Act is that the same has to be settled on the basis of evidence which is totally lacking here. Therefore, we cannot act in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity.

 

10.   We find no option except to dismiss the complaint without costs for non prosecution.  Accordingly, the point No.1 is answered. 

 

11.   POINT No.2: In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum this the  17^th day of  August,2015.    

 

                      Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

-Nil-

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

24-07-2015

Sri P. Suresh Reddy, S/o.Venkata Subbaiah, Nellore (Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

-Nil-

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

                                                                                      

                                                                                                                         Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Kakuturu Ramesh Reddy, Advocate, 23/858, Rameshreddy Nagar, Nellore-524003.
2.	Sri T. Manohar, Advocate, Flat No.3, Anjana Apartments, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.
3.	Sri T.V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate, 16/681, Near Saibaba Temple, Gandhinagar, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: