Karnataka

Kolar

CC/07/299

Khadarvalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramesh - Opp.Party(s)

C.R.Krishnamurthy

12 Aug 2008

ORDER


THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/299

Khadarvalli
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ramesh
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

CC Filed on 20.12.2007 Disposed on 21.08.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 21st Day of August 2008 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No.299/2007 Between:- Khadarvalli Sabhi, S/o Jaffer Sabhi, Shettigere (V), E.Thimmasandra Post, Sidlaghatta Taluk, Chikkaballapur District. Complainant (By Advocate Sri. C.R.Krishnamurthy) V/s 1. Sri. Ramesh, S/o Rangaiah Setty, Major, Dealer for TAFE and Massey- Ferguson Tractors, Spare parts and Implements, B.B.Road, Chikkaballapur District. 2. Sri Jagadish, S/o Nanjappa, Major, Resident of Kandavara, Chikkaballapur. CC No.299/2007 3. The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Chikkaballapur. Opposite parties (OP-1 By Advocate Sri. B.Kumar & Another) (OPs-2 & 3 Ex-parte) ORDER 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., 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. The complainant is an agriculturist. He approached OP-1 and 2 for purchase of TAFE and Massey Fergusson Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under: Part No. Description Amount M.F.1035 DI(J) 36.5 HP 3,69,369-00 Engine No. S.337-08678 Chassis No. 309964 Trailer 0,95,000-00 Cultivator 0,28,250-00 Disc Plough 0,32,000-00 Total 5,24,619-00 CC No.299/2007 The complainant obtained agricultural loan from OP-3 bank and sent the cheque to OP-1 on 12.12.2005. Thereafter OP-1 delivered tractor and trailer with registration No.KA-40 T-5063 and KA-40 T-5064 to the complainant, 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. 3. OP-3 bank was served with notice issued by this Forum. Sri NGV Advocate undertook to appear for OP-3. However the vakalath and version for OP-3 was not filed. Even after repeated opportunities. OP-1 and 2 were also served with notices sent by this Forum. They remained absent. Their version was not filed. Thereafter the case was posted for complainant’s evidence. Inspite of sufficient opportunity the complainant has also not led any evidence. The case has been taken as heard and posted for orders by 21.08.2008. In the meanwhile on 18.08.2008 Sri BK Advocate filed vakalath for OP-1 and also filed an CC No.299/2007 application to set aside the order placing OP-1 ex-parte. The version of OP-1 was not filed along with this application. Considering the delay the said application is rejected. 4. The averments in the complaint are not prima-facie supported by any reliable materials or documents. The complainant has not produced any document relating to the sale transaction of tractor and trailer. The said vehicle was registered in the name of complainant on 12.12.2005 before RTO, Chikkaballapur. Except the copies of RC relating to tractor and trailer, no other document is produced by complainant. He has also not led any evidence. The complainant has alleged that old tractor and trailer were supplied to him. But the RC discloses that the tractor and trailer in question were manufactured in 2005. In such circumstance it cannot be said that old tractor and trailer were supplied to complainant. The complainant has stated that accessories like Bumper Top, Disc Plough, Cultivator, Leveler, and Blade Trailer were not supplied to him. He should establish that he had booked for these accessories. He alleged in para-3 of the complaint that proforma invoice was issued to him and he mentioned certain particulars of that proforma invoice. He does not say the date of the proforma invoice. He has not produced this proforma invoice. Even as per his allegation in para-3 he had booked only cultivator and disc plough but not other accessories claimed in para 5 of the complaint. He has alleged that certain gift was offered for purchase of tractor and trailer. That allegation is not supported by any document. As already noted the complainant has not led any evidence in CC No.299/2007 support of the averments made in the complaint. Therefore we hold that any of the allegations made in the complaint is not prima facie established. In such circumstance even if the OPs remained absent, no relief can be granted to complainant. 5. Hence we pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 21st day of August 2008. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT