CC Filed on 01.02.2008<br /> Disposed on 30.10.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 30th Day of October 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.12/2008<br /> Between:-<br /> <br /> Smt. Narasamma,<br /> W/o Bavanna,<br /> Aged about 55 years,<br /> R/o Maraganakunte Village,<br /> Gulur Post,<br /> Bagepalli Taluk,<br /> Chickballapur District. ….Complainant<br /> (By Advocate Sri. V.Sridhar & Others)<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. The Proprietor,<br /> M/s Bhavani Tractors,<br /> Authorized Dealers for:<br /> Sonalika Tractors,<br /> Spare Parts, Sales & Service,<br /> B.B.Road, NH-7,<br /> Chickballapur – 562 101.<br /> (OP-1 By Advocate Sri. P.M.Shankarprasad & Others)<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank Ltd., <br /> Branch Office, <br /> D.V.G. Road,<br /> Bagepalli Town. ….Opposite parties <br /> (OP-2 By Advocate Sri. N.G.Vasudev Murthy)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against opposite parties to pay <br /> CC No.12/2008<br /> Rs.1,56,659/- with costs and interest towards non supply of materials with special damages of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint are as fallows: That the complainant obtained quotation for Rs.5,24,500/- from OP-1 for purchase of a tractor and a trailer and accessories namely Bumper and MB Plough. The OP-2 bank sanctioned the loan in the name of complainant for payment of the price of tractor etc., after receipt of margin amount of Rs.26,500/- from complainant. OP-2 paid Rs.5,24,500/- to OP-1 for the supply of the tractor, trailer and other accessories. It is alleged that OP-1 has supplied the tractor as per specification but supplied a low quality trailer and has not at all supplied the accessories. It is also alleged that the Government has fixed the value of the tractor supplied at Rs.3,34,341/- and that the value of trailer supplied is worth Rs.50,000/- only but OP-2 charged Rs.3,73,500/- towards the price of tractor and Rs.1,05,000/- towards the price of trailer. It is also alleged that OP-1 and 2 have colluded and defrauded the complainant by taking signatures of complainant on blank forms. Therefore the complainant requested for recovery of Rs.1,56,659/- towards the excess price charged with compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony.<br /> <br /> 3. OP-1 and 2 were also served with notices sent by this Forum. They appeared and filed their versions. <br /> <br /> OP-2 stated that as per the quotation supplied to it the loan was sanctioned and subsequently the complainant committed default in repaying the loan installments and filed this complaint with false averments to delay the repayment of loan. <br /> CC No.12/2008<br /> OP-1 stated that as per specification he supplied the tractor and the price charged for it was normal and that the Govt. had not fixed the price of the tractor. Further he contended that the complainant after taking delivery of the tractor expressed his unwillingness to take delivery of the trailer and accessories, therefore he returned Rs.1,55,100/- in all to complainant on different dates under different cheque and vouchers being the balance amount recovered towards the price of trailer and accessories. He also contended that the complainant purchased the trailer through one M/s GLN Engineering and Rewinding Electricals, at Peresandra in Chickballapur District. To evidence that fact he produced RC of the trailer. Therefore he contended that there is no deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant has not filed affidavit by way of evidence inspite of granting sufficient opportunity. She had also not filed any rejoined after filing the version of OP-2. The affidavit evidence of OP-2 is also not filed within the time allowed. However OP-2 had produced xerox copies of the vouchers signed by the husband of complainant and also the xerox copy of his bank account maintained with Canara Bank Chickballapur to evidence the payment of amounts through cheques. The said account extract shows that Rs.1,22,100/- has been paid to complainant through different cheques. It can also be seen that the voucher dated 15.02.2006 for Rs.31,700/- is signed by both complainant and her husband. Therefore in all there is clear evidence to show that OP-1 has returned Rs.1,53,800/-. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration.<br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency by OPs?<br /> 2. If so what order?<br /> CC No.12/2008<br /> 6. After considering the documents and pleadings our findings are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1: The complainant has not produced any document to show that the Govt. has fixed the value of tractor at Rs.3,34,341/-. The quotation produced by complainant itself shows that the value of tractor quoted was Rs.3,73,500/-. OP-1 has contends that he received value of tractor as quoted in the quotation. Further OP-1 has stated that the complainant was not willing to take delivery of trailer and accessories. The value of these Trailer, Bumper and MB Plough are quoted at Rs.1,05,000/-, Rs.17,000/- and Rs.29,000/- in the quotation respectively. Therefore in all the price of trailer and accessories comes to Rs.1,51,100/- as quoted in the quotation. As already noted the OP-1 has paid Rs.1,53,800/- to complainant. The said payment can be believed in view of the documents produced by OP-1. The signature of the husband of complainant and the LTM of complainant found on the vouchers tally with the admitted signatures of complainant and her husband. It can also be seen that the husband of complainant had signed the delivery note along with complainant and further that he alone had signed the quotation. Therefore the contention of the OP-1 that he had not supplied the trailer and accessories can be believed. Admittedly there is one trailer with complainant. The RC discloses that the manufacturer of trailer was GLN Engineering and Rewinding Electricals as contended by OP-1. As already noted the complainant has not filed any affidavit in support of her case. Therefore we hold that there is no deficiency in service by OPs and point No.1 is held in negative.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.12/2008<br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative, the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs. It appears the complainant has suppressed the true facts in the complaint. <br /> <br /> 7. Hence we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 30th day of October 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />