CC Filed on 30.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 19.08.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 19th Day of August 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.213/2007<br /> Between:-<br /> <br /> Munivenkatappa,<br /> S/o Venkatappa,<br /> Ajjekadirenahalli (Vi),<br /> Abloodu Post,<br /> Sidlaghatta Taluk,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. Complainant<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. C.R.Krishnamurthy)<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. Sri. Ramesh,<br /> S/o Rangaiah Setty,<br /> Major,<br /> Dealer for TAFE and Massey-<br /> Ferguson Tractors,<br /> Spare parts and Implements,<br /> B.B.Road,<br /> Chikkaballapur,<br /> Kolar District.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri Jagadish, <br /> S/o Nanjappa, <br /> Major,<br /> Resident of Kandavara,<br /> Chikkaballapur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> 3. The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank,<br /> Dibburahalli Branch,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 & 2 By Advocate Sri. B.Kumar & Others)<br /> (OP-3 By Advocate Sri. N.G.Vasudev Moorthy & Others)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against opposite parties 1 and 2 to issue original documents and to deliver materials worth Rs.2,38,619/- and to give prize scheme materials i.e., Mobile, and TVS Victor Bike to complainant and to award costs etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint may be stated as fallows: That OP-1 is a dealer in tractor and OP-2 is the field officer working under OP-1 and that OP-3 bank is the financer for purchase of the tractor and accessories.<br /> <br /> The complainant is an agriculturist. He approached OP-1 and 2 for purchase of TAFE and Massey Fergusion Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under:<br /> Part No. Description Amount<br /> M.F.1035 DI (J) 36.5 HP 3,69,369-00<br /> Engine No. S.337-09950 <br /> Chassis No. 313218 <br /> Trailer 0,95,000-00<br /> Cultivator 0,28,250-00<br /> Disc Plough 0,32,000-00<br /> Total 5,24,619-00<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> The complainant obtained agricultural loan from OP-3 bank and sent the cheque to OP-1 on 01.12.2005. Thereafter OP-1 delivered tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-40 T-4981 and KA-40 T-4982 to the complainant in presence of OP-2 and 3, but he did not deliver other items like Bumper Top, Disc Plough, Cultivator, Leveler and Blade Trailer. It is alleged that the tractor and trailer supplied to complainant were old and used one, but they were painted to look like new one. It is alleged that the documents relating to tractor and trailer like RC, Insurance Certificate etc., were not handed over to complainant. It is further alleged that OPs-1 and 2 had promised that they would give one Mobile and one TVS Victor Bike as a prize for purchase of tractor and trailer, but they did not give any such prize as promised. It is alleged that only the tractor and trailer worth Rs.2,86,000/- were supplied but other accessory items worth Rs.2,38,619/- were not delivered to complainant by OPs-1 and 2. It is alleged that inspite of repeated demands OPs-1 and 2 failed to deliver other materials and to hand over original documents. Therefore the complainant filed the above complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. OP-3 bank appeared and filed its version. It is stated in its version that this OP granted loan after obtaining invoice and quotation for tractor and trailer and other accessories from complainant and disbursed the said loan to OP-1. It is contended that the loan was repayable in installments, but the complainant failed to repay the amount as per terms and conditions of the loan. The other allegations made in the complaint are denied. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> 4. OPs-1 and 2 appeared through counsel and OP-1 filed the version. It is contended that OP-2 had not issued proforma invoice to complainant as stated in the complaint, but the quotation / proforma invoice dated 18.11.2005, was issued to complainant and that as per the said quotation / proforma invoice issued to the complainant the tractor and trailer and accessories were delivered to complainant under proper tax invoice / delivery memo dated 23.11.2005 signed and accepted by complainant. They denied that old tractor and trailer were supplied after painting and that they offered any prize for purchase of this tractor and trailer, but they contended that the bumper prize scheme announced by them was inforce for a limited period from 15.01.2005 to 10.02.2005 only. Further they contended that the RC of the tractor and trailer was delivered to complainant soon after its receipt from RTO. They denied that there was any obligation on the part of OP-1 to pay for the insurance in respect of the vehicle sold. They denied other allegations made against them. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> 5. The complainant has not led any evidence inspite of sufficient opportunity. The OPs submitted that they have also no evidence as the complainant did not lead any evidence. OP-1 filed documents at the time of filing version. We heard the arguments. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration. <br /> 1) Whether the complainant proves that the quotation / proforma<br /> invoice as alleged in the complaint was issued in his favour?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant proves that old tractor and trailer<br /> were supplied to him after painting them to look like new one?<br /> 3) Whether complainant proves that OPs-1 and 2 had offered <br /> Mobile and TVS Victor Bike as prize for purchase of tractor <br /> and trailer by him? <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> 4) Whether the complainant proves that accessories were not <br /> delivered to him?<br /> 5) What order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the documents and the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as fallows:<br /> <br /> POINT No.1: The complainant has not produced the quotation or its copy referred to by him in para-3 of the complaint. The complainant does not offer any explanation for the non-production of this material document. On the other hand OP-1 has produced Xerox copy of the quotation signed by both parties. Hence one can clearly infer that proforma invoice as alleged by complainant was not issued to him. Therefore we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No.2: There is no convincing evidence that old tractor and trailer were delivered after painting them to look like new one. The documents produced by OP-1 show that the tractor and trailer were new vehicles and they were not previously used one. It can also be seen that unless the tractor and trailer are new one a fresh registration of the same will not be effected by the RTO. Therefore we hold point No.2 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT No.3: OP-1 has contended that the bumper prize scheme was available only for the period commencing from 15.01.2005 to 10.02.2005 and no promise was made to complainant to offer such prize at the time of this transaction. He has produced the daily news paper Vijay Karnataka dated 13.01.2005 and also the pamphlet circulated in <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> that regard. It is contended by OP-1 that the complainant has produced a manipulated Xerox copy of the pamphlet after screening the period during which this scheme was inforce. The comparison of the original pamphlet produced in CC 106/2007 and the copy of it produced in all the cases by OP-1 and the copy of pamphlet produced by complainant in the case, clearly establish that the complainant had surreptitiously taken the Xerox copy of the original pamphlet screening the words “valid for 15.01.2005 to 10.02.2005 only” appearing in the original pamphlet. It is not the case of complainant that he was orally promised to extend that benefit to him even after that limited period for his purchase. If that were the case there was no reason for him to produce a forged pamphlet screening the validity period of that offer. Therefore we hold point No.3 in negative. <br /> <br /> POINT NO.4: The quotation and tax invoice / delivery note produced by OPs-1 and 2 disclose that all the accessories booked were delivered to complainant and he acknowledged the acceptance of delivery. The complaint contains incorrect facts regarding the contents of quotation, the date of payment and the total amount paid to OP-1 by the financer. The necessary particulars regarding date of quotation, date of purchase are not stated in the complaint which shows that the complainant has not taken proper care to place the correct facts and figures. In such circumstances it is difficult to accept the oral version of complainant that he had not received the accessories. There is no other evidence to show that OP-1 was not in a position to supply the accessories to complainant on the date of delivery stated by him. Therefore we hold point No.4 in negative. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.213/2007<br /> POINT NO.5: The complainant appears to have alleged that he has not received original RC and insurance certificate of the tractor and trailer from OP-1. This allegation is denied. OP-1 has produced document to show that complainant received original RC soon after its receipt from RTO. He contended that he had not undertaken to pay the vehicle insurance charges. There is no averment in the complaint that the amount paid by complainant included the charges towards insurance of the vehicle or that there was such custom to bear the said expense by the seller of vehicle. 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 19th day of August 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />