Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 30th day of March, 2005
C.D.No. 133/2004
K.Prabhakar Reddy,
S/o. K.Pulla Reddy,
H.No. 51/14-68,
Chella Street,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. S. Loka Raj,
S/o. S.Anand,
13/58, Shareen Nagar,
Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party
2. Road Transport Officer,
Transport Dept,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.2 represented by
his counsel Smt D.S. Saileela.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 11 & 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 95,000/- with interest, Rs. 40,000/- as compensation and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a tractor bearing No. AP 26 V 5097 Model 1995 from opposite party No.1 for Rs.95,000/-. After perusal of documents from opposite party No.2 the complainant purchased the said tractor. Thereafter, the said tractor was under continuous repairs after referring to a mechanic, it was found that the said tractor was of 1992 model. The opposite parties 1 & 2 created false documents, as the said tractor was of 1995 model and sold to the complainant. The complainant also incurred tractor repair expenses up to Rs. 30,000/-. Therefore, selling of tractor of 1992 model as 1995 model was held as deficiency of service.
3. The complainant insubstantiation of his case filed the following Xerox copies of R.C dt 13.8.2003 issued by RTA Kurnool of complainant’s vehicle, agreement executed between opposite party No.1 and complainant and
insurance policy bearing No. 3082 of complainant’s vehicle, besides to his affidavit in reiteration of his complaint averments.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case the complainant the opposite party No.1 remained absent through out the case proceeding and were made exparte. The opposite party No.2 appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing written version as defence.
5. The written version of opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant is not the owner of the said vehicle as per their records, as such the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint. The original owner submitted purchase records and insurance policy to opposite party No.2, thereafter the opposite party No.2 registered the said vehicle bearing No. AP 26 V 5092 and trailer bearing No. AP 21 T 3515 on 18.3.1995. As per their records the said vehicle is of 1995 model and further submits that no false records are issued and lastly seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. The opposite party No.2 in substantiation of their case filed attested Xerox copy of Form 24 B, Register of Motor vehicle, besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his written version as defence.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
8. The complainant except filing this case did not evince any interest or deligency in prosecuting the matter as he neither appeared him self in support of his case nor made any endeavor to get the filed documents marked as exhibits, but on the other hand filed un attested Xerox documents which cannot acquire any evidentiary value, for want of their proof with their original or attested documents as to their bonafides. Hence, the case of the complainant is having any material to entertain the complainant’s grievance nor any proper proof of the material by which his complaint should be established as is failed, the complainant is remaining utterly failed in establishing his case before this Forum to entertain his grievances againsts the opposite parties and there by any of his entitleness for the reliefs sought.
9. In the light of the above discussions as the material placed by the complainant being un worthy of consideration on account of its in herent defects. The case of the complainant and his entitleness to the reliefs is not remaining made out.
10. Hence, the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court 30th day of March, 2005.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
