CC Filed on 17.12.2007<br /> Disposed on 22.09.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 22nd Day of September 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.332/2007<br /> Between:-<br /> <br /> Smt. O.Lakshmidevamma,<br /> W/o Obalareddy,<br /> Aged about 60 years,<br /> R/o Ramaswamypalli Village,<br /> Racheruvu Post,<br /> Bagepalli Taluk,<br /> Chickballapur District. Complainant<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. V.Sridhar & Others)<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. M/s Jathi Motors,<br /> Dealers for: Escorts Tractors,<br /> Spare Parts & Implements,<br /> Tumkur Road,<br /> Bangalore-22.<br /> Rep: by its Proprietor.<br /> 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., <br /> Head Office, Hosur Road,<br /> Near Oxford College,<br /> Bommanahalli,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> Rep: by its Manager. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 By Advocate Sri. S.Basavaraj & Others)<br /> (OP-2 By Advocate Sri. V.K.Prashanth)<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.332/2007<br /> Rs.1,63,972/- collected in excess with interest and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts as may be gathered from the records, may be stated as follows: That OP-1 is a dealer in tractor and trailer and that OP-2 Bank is a financer. The complainant intending to purchase a tractor and trailer approached OPs. Accordingly OP-1 issued quotation for the price of tractor and trailer. OP-2 agreed to finance the said purchase with certain terms and conditions. The complainant agreed to pay the margin amount at the time of transaction. The details are as follows: <br /> For Tractor For Trailer<br /> 1. Price as per quotation Rs.3,97,765/- Rs.1,00,000/-<br /> 2. Margin amount Rs. 25,765/- Rs. 25,000/-<br /> 3. Finance amount Rs.3,72,000/- Rs. 75,000/-<br /> <br /> The tractor loan was repayable with 18 half yearly installments commencing from 22.05.2007, the 1st installment being for Rs.30,870/- and the remaining 17 installments being for Rs.37,154/- each. The trailer loan was also repayable in 18 half yearly installments, commencing from 22.05.2007, the 1st installment being for Rs.6,213/- and the remaining 17 installments being for Rs.7,491/- each. <br /> <br /> OP-1 delivered tractor and trailer as per quotation. The tractor and trailer were registered before the RTO Chickballapur on 04.12.2006 in the name of complainant bearing registration No. KA-40 T-6835 and KA-40 T-6836 respectively. OP-2 confirming the delivery of goods released the sanctioned loan amount in favour of OP-1 as per the normal business practice. <br /> <br /> CC No.332/2007<br /> It is alleged by complainant that she was persuaded by OP-1 that the bank would charge 0% interest to purchase tractor and trailer but actually huge interest was charged for the loan amount. Further that OP-1 charged more price to the tractor than the price of Rs.3,23,028/- fixed by the Government of Karnataka for retail sale of tractor in favour of agriculturists. Further that OP-1 has not actually delivered the trailer though he built false records to show the delivery of trailer. Further the complainant contended that OP-1 and OP-2 colluded to defraud her. Therefore she filed the complaint for recovery of excess price collected towards tractor and recovery of the price of non-delivered trailer with compensation etc., <br /> <br /> OPs have contended in their versions that the transaction was genuine and the complainant was informed all the terms and conditions of the transaction and the complainant agreed for those terms and OP-1 has delivered the tractor as well as the trailer as agreed. OP-1 has contended that Government of Karnataka has not fixed the retail price of the tractor supplied to complainant. <br /> <br /> 3. Complainant and OP-1 filed the affidavits supporting their respective contentions. However in the affidavit filed by complainant at the stage of evidence she admitted delivery of the trailer to her deviating from her earlier allegation made in the complaint, but stating that the trailer supplied was of inferior quality. <br /> <br /> 4. The learned counsel for complainant remained absent at the time of argument. Therefore the learned counsel for OP-1 was heard and the case is posted for orders.<br /> <br /> CC No.332/2007<br /> 5. After considering the records and documents and the evidence we think that the complaint is to be dismissed for the following reasons. <br /> <br /> There is no written or circumstantial evidence to infer that OP-1 had made representation that the loan would be provided at 0% interest for agriculturists for purchasing tractor and trailer. Therefore one cannot believe the allegation of such representation made to complainant. The complainant has not produced any order issued by Government of Karnataka fixing the price of tractor for sale in favour of agriculturists. Hence that allegation regarding the charging of excess price for tractor is to be rejected. In the complaint it was alleged that trailer was not at all supplied, but in the evidence the supply of trailer was admitted and it is contended that inferior quality trailer was supplied. Except the evidence of complainant there is no material to infer that, trailer supplied was of inferior quality. Therefore we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any of the allegations made in the complaint, to establish deficiency in service or supply of defective goods. 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 22nd day of September 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />