1. The fact of the case of Complainant is that he purchased one Mahindra Tractor with hydraulic facility vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-4698 for earning his livelihood by means of self employment from one Arun Kumar Sen vide agreement dated 31.12.2018.  It is alleged that after 3 months of its use, the hydraulic system showed defects, for which he contacted with O.P. No.1 and as per their advise, he shifted to their garage where the hydraulic pump set was changed with a new one and he paid Rs. 8,386/- vide invoice no. PJPTDSSC/454 dated 09.07.2019, but after 3 days the same defects occurred.  And as per advise of O.P. No.1 he shifted the vehicle to the O.P. No.2, another service center of O.P. No.1. But since the defects could not rectified, he again shifted his vehicle to O.P. No.1 where the complainant paid Rs. 6,814/- vide invoice no. PJPTDJIC/560/- dated 27.07.2019.  Further alleged that since the earlier defects occurred within 2 days, and on verification, the O.P. No.2 replied that the hydraulic pump set was a defective one and in this regard, complainant incurred expenditure of Rs. 22,000/- and with other allegations, he filed this case with a prayer to replace the hydraulic pump set and distributor set, to refund Rs. 22,000/-, to pay the finance amount of Rs. 1,24,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- towards shifting the vehicle, Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation to him.
    
2.   O.P. No.1 & 2, being the one and same organization, appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their joint counter admitting the service carried out by them against the vehicle but denied the allegations of complainant contending that complainant is not consumer under them as one Prasant Mandal is the owner of the vehicle, who brought the vehicle to their service center for defects of hydraulic system and also they have replaced the same with new spare parts and raised the bills for Rs. 6,814/- on 27.07.2019 and with other contentions, showing their no deficiency, they prayed to dismiss the case.

3. O.P. No. 3 though received the notice, but did not choose to appear in this case, nor filed their counter version nor also participated in the hearing.

4. In the present case in hand, it is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased the alleged Tractor with hydraulic facility vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-4698 from one Arun Kumar Sen through an agreement for sale dated 31.12.2018.  Complainant filed document to that effect.  It is also an admitted fact that the O.P. No. 1 & 2 have carried out the service work against the defects in hydraulic system of the alleged vehicle.  Complainant also filed document to that effect.  The allegations of complainant is that inspite of repeated service carried out towards defects of the hydraulic system, the O.P. no. 1 & 2 could not rectified the same, whereas the O.P. No. 2 suggested the hydraulic system as defective one even though the same was changed with a new one, thus he filed this case for replacement and other claims.  On the other hand the only contentions of O.P. No. 1 & 2 is that the complainant is not a consumer under them, whereas they have admitted towards the service work of the alleged hydraulic system, thus showing no deficiency they prayed to dismiss the case.

5. We have carefully gone through the documents filed by the parties.  It is ascertained that complainant purchased the alleged tractor with hydraulic facility from one Arun Kumar Sen, whereas the O.P. No. 1 & 2 repeatedly contended that one Prasant Mandal is the owner of the alleged vehicle.  In this connection we have verified the documents i.e. agreement for sale and R.C. Book of the alleged vehicle and found that one Arun Kumar Sen is the owner of the alleged vehicle, which is clearly evident from the R.C. Book issued against the alleged vehicle vide Regd. No. OD-30-A-4698.Hence it is concluded that Arun Kumar Sen is the rightful owner and user / beneficiary of the alleged vehicle which is under finance from O.P. No.3.Further the document i.e. agreement for sale clearly shows that that the said Arun Kumar Sen has executed an agreement for sale in favour of the complainant on dated 31.12.2018, as such the rightful ownership has been transferred to the present complainant. Further we would like to make it clear that even though the alleged vehicle is under finance, the benefits of the alleged vehicle was already being used by Arun Kumar Sen prior to execute the agreement for sale and after execution of the said agreement, the benefits out of the alleged vehicle is being used by the present complainant. Hence in our view, the present complainant, being the user and beneficiary of the vehicle, is a bonafide consumer under the O.Ps.

6. Further we would like to make it clear though the vehicle in question have not been transferred in favour of the complainant from its previous owner, but by virtue of the agreement for sale, the ownership is transferred in favour of the complainant.  Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 emphasizes that “ Property passes when intended to pass – (1) Where there is a contract for the sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferredto the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.
   
   (2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.
   
   (3) x x x x x x x xx
    
7. Hence considering the above provision of Sale of Goods Act, 1930, we are in view that the present complainant is the rightful owner of the alleged vehicle and transfer of ownership in the record of concerned Registering Authority is only a statutory requirement.  In this connection, we have fortified with the verdicts of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between New India Insurance Co. Ltd Vrs Smt. Bimlesh, wherein it is held that “  Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 50 – Motor Vehicle Rules, Forms No. 29 & 30 – Sale of Goods Act, 1930 – Section 19 and 20 – Vehicle – Transfer of ownership – As per Section 19 of 1930 Act, movable property transfers to the purchaser at the time of transaction  intended by the parties – According to Section 20 of the said Act the property in the goods would pass to the buyer when contract is made irrespective of payment – The transfer of the vehicle in the name of complainant in the record of RTO, will not postpone the transfer of ownership to the buyer / complainant – Moreover, as per Section 50 of 1988 Act, the transferor as well transferee are bound to record  the fact of transfer to the authority but this obligation is case only after transfer of vehicle – Held the ownership of the vehicle is transferred on execution of sale letter – The requirement of informing the transfer to the registering authority is only a statutory requirement.” 

8. Further during hearing, complainant submitted that though he has cleared all the finance installment dues to the O.P. No. 3, but due to non deposit of late fine amount they have not issued the NOC against the alleged vehicle.  Further submitted that due to the defects in the alleged hydraulic system the vehicle was lying unused and he did not get benefits out of it, for which he could not deposit the installment dues for about 8 months i.e. from July 2019 to February 2020 and the O.P. No. 3 charged the fine amount.  Since the O.P. No. 3 did not participate throughout the proceeding, so also the O.P.No. 1&2 never challenged the said versions of complainant, as such we have no hesitation to disbelieve the submissions of complainant and documents filed by him showing the fine amount for the period from July, 2019 to February, 2020 ofRs. 6,132/-.Further it is ascertained from the documents and submissions of complainant that though the alleged hydraulic set was changed and also repaired by the O.P. No. 1 & 2, the defects persists again and again. Had the O.P. No.1 & 2 replaced the alleged entire hydraulic set with a new defect free set, then the complainant could have able to get the benefits out of it and also could have able to deposit the installment dues in time.And in our view, due to such improper service of the O.P.No.1 & 2, the complainant is supposed to bear the fine amount, which is not to be happened and such act of the O.P. No. 1 & 2 deprieves the complainant to get the legal ownership on the vehicle.Hence the O.P. No. 1 & 2 is liable to pay the entire fine amount for the period from July 2019 to February 2020 for Rs. 6,132/- as per documents issued by the O.P. No. 3.Hence this order.

                                                                                                        ORDER

        The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 1 & 2 being the same organization, is herewith directed to replace the en tire hydraulic set with a new defect free set and also directed to pay the entire fine amount of Rs. 6,132/- against the finance installment for the period from July, 2019 to February, 2020.  Further the O.P. No. 1 & 2, are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and financial loss and also to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards costs of litigation and all the directions should be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @10% p.a. from the date of this order till payment.

Since no specific allegations are found out against the O.P. No.3, no order against them.  However, the O.P. No. 3 is herewith directed to issue NOC whenever they receive the fine amount for the period from July, 2019 to February, 2020 with immediate effect.

        Pronounced the order in the open Court on this the 22^nd day of July, 2021.

        Issue free copy to the parties concerned.