Tamil Nadu

Nagapattinam

CC/10/2012

Vijayakumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

R.N.R.Trakters and two others. - Opp.Party(s)

D.Durai

08 Jul 2014

ORDER

   Date of Filing      : 28.02.2012

                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 08.07.2014

                                                                   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

NAGAPATTINAM

 

PRESENT: THIRU.P.G.RAJAGOPAL, B.A.B.L.,         …..PRESIDENT

    THIRU.A.BASHEER AHAMED,B.Com., ….  MEMBER I

               Tmt. R.GEETHA, B.A.,                             …. MEMER II

 

 

CC. No.10/2012

 

DECIDED ON THIS   08^th   DAY OF JULY 2014.

 

 

            Thirumathi.Vijayakumari,

            D/o K. Kalyanam,

            Main Road, Kondal, Valluvakudi Post,

            Sirkali Taluk, Nagapattinam  District.

            Represented by her Power Agent,

             Through K. Kalyanam.                                                         …..      Complainant

                                                                                                  

                                                                /versus/

                                   

1.   The Manager,

R.N.R. Tractors, F.M. Tractor (Authorized Dealer),

No.36/44, Tharangambadi Road, Mayiladuthurai,

Nagapattinam District - 609 001.

2. The General Manager,

Tractor and Form Equipment Ltd., (T.A.F.E)

Eagle Gardens Sembium,

Chennai – 600 002.

3. The Branch Manager,

Kodak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

No.B.17, Iyswarya Building,

Sasthri Road, Thillai Nagar,

Tiruchirappalli – 620 017.….. Opposite parties

 

 

    

     This complaint having come up for final hearing before us on 23.06.2014, on perusal of the material records and on hearing the arguments of Thiru.T. Durai Counsel for the complainant, the 1^st opposite party having been represented by Thiru.R. Krishnamoorthi, Advocate and subsequently been set exparte and  the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties having been set parte and having stood for consideration, till this day the Forum  passed the following

 

      ORDER.

     By the President, Thiru.P.G.Rajagopal, B.A.B.L., 

The complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. 

 

                        2. The gist of the complainant filed by the complainant is that the complainant offered  to purchase a new F.M. Tractor from the 1^st opposite party in the exchange offer selling his own old tractor, fixing its price at Rs.375000/-.  The 1^st opposite party remitted Rs.266045/- towards balance of the loan amount due from the complainant to the SBI Sirkali on the hypothecation of the old tractor and the 3^rd opposite party, who is the financier for the transaction of F.M. Tractor with the 1^st opposite party advanced sum of Rs.314485/- towards purchase of the new tractor from the 1^st opposite party. The tractor was given delivery to the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party who also offered a sum of Rs.100000/- to be deducted from the price of the new tractor, actually gave deduction  of Rs.85,000/- only.  However the complainant paid Rs.36000/- to the Manager of the 1^st opposite party and another sum of Rs.105355/- on 08.06.2011.  On the same day the 1^st opposite party has also given a calculation list to the complainant, according to which the complainant has to pay only Rs.18000/- towards transaction of the purchase of the new F.M.  tractor from the 1^st opposite party and the said amount was agreed to be paid towards registration expenses of his tractor.  The 1^st opposite party is bound to register the tractor with due insurance therefor.  The 3^rd opposite party who is the financier is bound to make an endorsement of the loan advanced by him  on the registration certificate book after verifying the insurance certificate of the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party who is the manufacturer of the tractor is also bound to verify, whether the transaction was completed and the vehicle was duly registered and insured.  But all the three opposite parties have committed the deficiency of service and till date neither the registration certificate of the tractor nor the insurance policy is given to the complainant and the tractor is kept idle by the complainant without being  put to use. 

3. The complainant sent a notice to the 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party on 02.07.2011 through his Advocate and the 1^st opposite party alone sent a reply stating false averments which are denied by the complainant.  As the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties did not comply with the demand of the complainant, he sent another notice on 18.11.2011 to the 2^nd opposite party and even the 2^nd opposite party also has not acted positively  after receiving  the said notice.  The complainant however paid the 1^st installment of the loan of Rs.68858/- with the 3^rd opposite party.  Because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, in not  providing the registration certificate and insurance policy for the tractor, the complainant has incurred loss without using the tractor.  The complainant prays for an order to direct the opposite parties to pay the sum of Rs.500000/- towards compensation for the loss and mental agony caused to the complainant owing to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and to pay jointly or severally Rs.20000/- towards expenditure of this litigation with interest at  12% per annum.

                       

4. The gist of the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party is that it is true that the price for the new tractor purchased by the complainant from the 1^st opposite party was fixed at Rs.645000/- and old tractor of the complainant was received by the 1^st opposite party in exchange for the Rs.375000/-and sum of Rs.266045/- was paid by the 1^st opposite party towards the balance of the loan due to the SBI, Sirkali for the said old tractor.  The concession of Rs.85000/- was also given by the 1^st opposite party and a sum of Rs.307690/- was paid by the 3^rd opposite party, the financier of the complainant for the said new tractor and a sum of Rs.105355/- was paid by the complainant towards price of the new tractor on 08.06.2011 and there was a balance of Rs.54000/- to be paid by the complainant.  It is only because of the laches on the part of the complainant in not a making the payment of Rs.54000/- the registration was delayed and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

                        5. The 2^nd opposite party was set exparte on 19.08.2013 on his repeated failure to appear before this Forum and the 3^rd opposite party was set exparte on that day, for not filing   his written version.  Even though the 1^st opposite party filed the said written version, he failed to file the proof affidavit in proof of his defence and finally he was also set exparte on 03.02.2014 for not filing his proof affidavit.  The complainant filed his proof affidavit in support of his claim and has filed 10  documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A10.  The brief written arguments is also filed by the complainant.

 6. Points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what?

7. Point 1:  The complainant’s contention is that he purchased a new tractor from the 1^st opposite party in exchange of his old tractor and he is liable to pay only Rs.18000/- to the 1^st opposite party and it was agreed to be paid by him at the time of registration of the tractor.  Even though he has executed all the documents relating to the registration of the tractor with the 1^st opposite party, the tractor is yet to be registered and to be insured and he is incurring loss without using the tractor for want registration and insurance and therefore the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to him for the loss and mental agony caused to him. 

8. The complainant has filed Exhibit A1 dealing with the particulars of transactions relating to the sale and exchange  of the old tractor with the 1^st opposite party for  the new tractor and as per the document, he is to pay only Rs.18000/- towards balance of the price of the tractor to the 1^st opposite party.  It is also specifically stated therein, that he should pay the balance of Rs.18000/- at the time of registration.  Exhibit A2 is the particulars of loan borrowed by the complainant from the 3^rd opposite party and the various installments to be paid by him.  Exhibit A3 is the quotation for the new tractor purchased by him and the price is Rs.645000/-. Exhibit A4 is the receipt for the payment of one installment of the loan amount by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party.  Exhibit A5 is the office copy of the petition sent to the 3^rd opposite party by the complainant seeking some copies of documents under the Right to Information Act.  Exhibit A6 is the office copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  Exhibit A7 is the reply given by the 1^st opposite party through his lawyer to the complainant’s lawyer.  Exhibit A8 is the office  copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the 2^nd opposite party,  the manufacturer of the tractor.  Exhibit A9 is the postal acknowledgement card of the 2^nd opposite party.  Exhibit A10 is the General Power of Attorney Deed executed by the complainant in favour of her husband to prosecute this  proceedings before this Forum on her behalf.

9. According to the complainant he is to pay only Rs.18000/- to the 1^st opposite party at the time of registration of the tractor sold to him.  According to the written version of the 1^st opposite party there was a balance of Rs.54000/- to be paid by the complainant to him.  According to the complainant a sum of Rs.36000/- was paid to the Manager of the 1^st opposite party and hence is liable to pay only Rs.18000/- towards the balance of the price of the tractor. It seems that the 1^st opposite party has not given credit to the said 36000/- paid to the Manager and hence the variation of the amount Rs.36000/- occurs,  since all the opposite parties including the 1^st opposite party remain exparte invariably an inference is to be drawn in favour of the complainant.  Even though the 1^st opposite party has filed his written version the mere plea in the written version cannot  be taken as proof  as he has failed to file his proof affidavit  in pursuance of his written version.  Therefore there is no justification on the part of the 1^st opposite party in not getting the tractor sold to the complainant registered and insured duly immediately after the sale and delivery of it to the complainant.  In spite of the notice Exhibit A8 even the 2^nd opposite party the manufacturer of the tractor also did not take any care to see that the vehicle is registered immediately in favour of the complainant. 

                        10.  As far as the 3^rd opposite party is concerned he ought to have at least instructed the 1^st opposite party with whom he has got business tie-up  for advancing loan for the tractors sold by him, to take steps immediately to register the tractor sold to the complainant, so that the endorsement of the loan advance by him could be entered in the registration certificate of the tractor, in evidence of its hypothecation to him.  As he has not taken any steps to see that the registration of the vehicle is done without any delay by the 1^st opposite party the 3^rd opposite party is not entitled to claim interest for the loan advanced till its registration and only from the date of registration of the tractor, for which he has advanced the loan, he could claim recovery of installments.  Therefore all the opposite parties are deficient in their respective services towards the complainant in not getting the registration and insurance of the vehicle for the complainant.

                        11. Point 2: In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The complainant is directed to send a demand draft for Rs.18000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand only) the balance as admitted by the complainant himself to the 1^st opposite party within 15 days from the date of this order and the 1^st opposite party is directed to get the vehicle registered and insured within 15 days of the receipt of the demand draft from the complainant.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are further directed to pay the sum of Rs.50000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant either jointly or severally towards compensation for the loss and mental agony caused to him owing to the deficiency of service on their part and to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of this litigation within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the said amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till its realization.  In case the complainant fails to pay the said sum of Rs.18000/-(Rupees eighteen thousand only) to the 1^st opposite party within the said period of 15 days, the complaint shall stand dismissed automatically.

 

This order is dictated by me to the Steno-Typist, transcribed, typed  by him, corrected and pronounced by me on this  8^th   day of  July 2014.

 

 

    MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                   PRESIDENT

 

List  of document   filed by the complainant

 

Ex.A1/Dt.08.06.2011: The particulars of the sale transaction of the tractor in the exchange  

   offer between the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2/Dt.29.04.2011: The particulars of loan advanced and installments of the repayment of

   the loan given by the 3^rd opposite party.

Ex.A3/Dt.16.01.2011: The quotation for the tractor given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A4/Dt.13.09.2011: The receipt for payment of an installment paid by the complainant to

    the 3^rd opposite party.

 

Ex.A5/Dt.23.09.2011: The copy of the application sent by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite

    party under the Right to Information Act with the postal     

    Acknowledgement card

Ex.A6/Dt.02.07.2011: The office copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the

    1^st and 3^rd opposite party with their postal  acknowledgement cards.

Ex.A7/Dt.08.08.2011: The Xerox copy of the reply sent by the 1^st opposite party’s lawyer to

               the complainant’s lawyer.

Ex.A8/Dt.18.11.2011: The copy of the notice sent by the complainant’s lawyer to the 2^nd

              opposite party.

Ex.A9/Dt.  Nil            : Postal acknowledgement card of the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A10/Dt.9.02.2012: The original General Power of Attorney Deed executed by the

    complainant in favour of her Husband.

 

                  

 

 

MEMBER I                                    MEMER II                                       PRESIDENT