F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an order directing the O.P. No.2 to return back the relevant papers and accessories of the purchased Tractor in question, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost and other relief to the complainant.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant was convinced by the local agent of the O.P. No.2 and also was agreed to purchase one Tractor name & style as Mahindra & Mahindra, Model No. Arjun 555, which was assessed of total cost of Rs.7,45,255/- including the cost of vehicle, accessories, cost of vehicular documents and other charges and out of such amount the O.P. No.3 concerned financial institutions of O.P. No.2 was sanctioned loan amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for purchasing the vehicle and out of rest amount of Rs.2,55,255/- less Rs.40,000/- i.e. Rs.2,15,255, will have to pay by the complainant. The complainant was paid up total dues to the O.P. No.2 and at the time of delivery of Tractor in question being asked by the complainant the O.P. No.2 was assured that the accessories will be given after few days but on repeated requests by the complainant to the O.P. No.2 for delivery of accessories and vehicular documents but the O.P. No.2 did not pay heed and for such the complainant has been suffering financial loss and mental harassment. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

The O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing questionnaires and W.V., while denying the case of the complainant, stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the case is barred by limitation, the complainant was paid only Rs.1,84,000/- out of dues of Rs.2,28,566/- and the O.P. is entitled to get the balanced amount from the complainant of Rs.44,556/-, there was no agreement to deliver the accessories with the vehicle and pray for dismissal of the case.

In spite of service of notice upon O.P. No.3, he did not appear in the case. Accordingly the case was heard ex-parte against the O.P. No.3.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To establish his case the complainant has adduced evidence by filing affidavit in chief, answers of questionnaires and submitted documents, which are payment receipts, delivery chalan, trade certificate and repayment schedule of loan amount etc. on the other hand O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 except submitting questionnaires and W.V., did not adduce any further evidence in support of their case and at the time of hearing of argument none was appeared on behalf of O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

We carefully consider the contents of the petition of complaint, questionnaires, answer of questionnaires, W.V. documentary evidence on record and argument advanced by the complainant.

It reveals from the documents and adduced evidences by the parties that the complainant was purchased one Tractor from O.P. No.1, who was/is the authorized dealer of the manufacturing company and O.P. No.2 was/is the proprietor of the O.P. No.1. The complainant has stated in the complaint that before purchasing the Tractor in question through local agent of the dealer an oral agreement was made with the O.P. No.2, that the complainant will get the offered accessories like as hood, rotor, casual, cathli and bumper with the Tractor, free of cost with the cost-price of the vehicle and fees of vehicular documents and other charges will have to pay separately. The complainant claimed that he was paid up the dues but the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 denied the statement of the complainant regarding delivery of the accessories and the complainant is also unable to prove by any documentary evidence that he was entitled for delivery of accessories free of cost with the vehicle. It is also the case of the complainant that after getting delivery of the Tractor in question, even on repeated request to the O.Ps., to hand over the vehicular documents i.e. R. C. Book, Insurance Certificate, Pollution Certificate, Tax Receipt etc., which are essential to run a vehicle on road but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the matter and for such the complainant could not ply the Tractor on road for lack of vehicular documents and he was bound to keep the vehicle in an idle position at his residence, as a result the complainant has been suffering huge financial loss, mental pain and agony. The contesting opposite parties have failed to prove that they have delivered the vehicular documents in time rather they have stated in their W.V. that the complainant was/is not paid total dues but no documentary proof or evidence adduced before this Forum by the opposite parties At the time of hearing of argument, the complainant and his lawyer submitted that the opposite parties have handed over the vehicular documents to the complainant recently. For such conduct of the opposite parties it clearly shows that there was/is negligence, harassment, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2.

In view of the above discussions we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for unnecessary harassment and mental pain and to get litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case No. CC-60/2013 is allowed on contest against the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed ex-parte against O.P. No.3 without cost.

Accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. No.2 to pay Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and unfair trade practice and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the total amount i.e. Rs.42,000/- will carry @ 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of full realization and the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

Let copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.