CC Filed on 30.10.2007<br /> Disposed on 20.08.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 20th 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.215/2007<br /> Between:-<br /> <br /> Krishnappa K.M.,<br /> S/o Munishamaiah K.,<br /> Kotahalli,<br /> Abludu 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 /> Chikkaballapur 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.215/2007<br /> 3. The Manager,<br /> Canara Bank,<br /> Dibburahalli Branch,<br /> Sidlaghatta Taluk,<br /> Chikkaballapur District. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 & 2 Ex-parte)<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 Fergusson Tractor and Trailer and OP-2 issued proforma invoice to complainant as under:<br /> Part No. Description Amount<br /> 1035DI(J) 3,69,369-00<br /> Engine No. S.324-B-48361 <br /> Chassis No. 264455 <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.215/2007<br /> The complainant obtained agricultural loan from OP-3 bank and sent the cheque to OP-1 on 21.07.2005. Thereafter OP-1 delivered tractor and trailer with sale certificate Form No.21 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.<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 /> 4. The notices issued to OPs-1 and 2 from this Forum under RPAD were served, but they did not appear before the Forum. <br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.215/2007<br /> After filing of the version by OP-3 on 31.03.2008, the case has been posted for complainant’s evidence on several dates. Inspite of it the complainant has not led any evidence till 16.07.08, on which day the request for further time to lead evidence by complainant was refused. The counsel for OP-3 submitted that he has no evidence as complainant has not led any evidence. Thereafter the case was posted for argument on 12.08.2008. On this day also though the complainant was present, he did not take any steps to file his evidence. The case was heard and posted for orders. <br /> <br /> 5. The OP-3 in its version contended that the complainant has come with false allegations and the loan was granted as per the quotation furnished by complainant and it had fallowed the required procedure for granting and disbursing the loan. Therefore the burden was on the complainant to prove the allegations made in the complaint, even though OPs-1 and 2 remained absent in the proceedings. The averments in the complaint were not prima-facie supported by any reliable allegations or documents. The sale certificate produced by complainant is dated 29.10.2004 and it shows that the year of manufacturing was 2004 and temporary certificate of registration was obtained on 29.10.2004. Therefore the allegation that old tractor and trailer were supplied after painting them to look like new one appears to be not true. The complainant has alleged that the OP-3 bank has issued the cheque on 21.07.2005 to OP-1. This fact also appears to be not true as the sale certificate shows that the sale was effected on 29.10.2004. The supplier would not usually deliver the goods without receipt of price. The sale certificate stands in the name of one Muniswamaiah. The complainant has produced the death certificate of one Muniswamaiah, but in his <br /> <br /> CC No.215/2007<br /> complaint he does not say that the tractor was purchased in the name of his father and that he died subsequently. The complainant failed to produce the quotation or other documents relating to sale transaction. Considering above facts one can say that the allegations made in the complaint are not prima-facie acceptable. Hence even if OPs-1 and 2 remained absent the claim of complainant cannot be accepted. <br /> <br /> 6. 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 20th day of August 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />