PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2011
Filed on : 18-09-2009
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 497/2009
Between
Saju P.P., : Complainant
S/o. Paily Mathai, (By Adv. K.P. Paulose,
Polayil house, Murimattom, Aiswarya building,
Peringole Kara, 109 Valanjambalam, Ernakulam)
Kolenchery, Ernakulam.
And
1. Shaji (Prop), : Opposite parties
M/s. Indian Motors, (1st O.P. by Adv. T.J. Lakshmanan
Door No. 11/380, ‘Penta Queen’ Padivattom,
Near K.G. Hospital N.H.47, Kochi-24)
Angamaly P.O., Ernakulam.
2. Vikas, Manager, (2nd O.P. by adv. Sabu S (Kallara-
Muthoot Bank, moola, Amples Building, Amulya
Kizhakkambalam. Street, Banerji road, Cochin-18)
3. Manager, Vivek Future (3rd O.P. absent)
Generali India Insurance
Company Ltd., Malabar
Cochin Arcade, 3rd & 4th
Floor, No.40/155,
MG Road, Ernakulalm-683 572.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is a tractor driver. Lured by assurances of the sales executive of the 1st opposite party the complainant purchased a compressor tractor from the 1st opposite party with the financial assistance of the 2nd opposite party. On 16-05-2009 the 1st opposite party delivered the compressor tractor bearing registration No. KL-40B9525 to the complainant. In July 2009 the traffic authority inspected the vehicle and its documents and found that the RC book does not contain the registration of the compressor. At that juncture the complainant came to know that the tractor is registered under agricultural purpose without remitting the tax for compressor tractor. So he could not ply the vehicle through public roads. The matter was duly intimated to the first opposite party. But they failed to rectify the defect. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.
2. The version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:
The 1st opposite party is only a dealer of the tractor and not doing business of compressor tractor. The complainant himself had arranged the finance and purchased the vehicle. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. The defense of the 2nd opposite party.
The 2nd opposite party is only the manager of the Muthoot Vehicle and Asset Finance Limited at its branch office at Kizhakambalam. The complainant had entered into a hire purchase agreement with the company for the purchase of compressor tractor. The 2nd opposite party is arrayed in the complaint in his personal capacity. So the complaint is not maintainable for mis-joinder of necessary parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 3rd opposite party has not responded for reasons of their own. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exbts A1 to A6 were marked on his side. The 1st opposite party was examined as DW1. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd opposite party. Heard the counsel for the parties.
5. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite parties?
6. During the proceedings in this Forum at the instance of the complainant this Forum directed the opposite parties 1 and 2 to produce the cash bill of the disputed vehicle. The opposite parties in turn filed the affidavits stating that they are not in a possession of the same.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently contented that the complainant has purchased the tractor with compressor by paying Rs. 5,50,000/-. Exbt A1 goes to show that the complainant is the registered owner of the tractor bearing registration No. KL-40B9525. Exbt. A3 order form as well goes to show that the complainant has purchased a compressor assembly from the 1st opposite party. Exbt A2 insurance certificate would show that a tractor with compressor has been insured. Exbt A5 and A6 go to show that the legal proceedings has been initiated by the Muthoot Vehicle & Asset Finance Limited against the complainant for the recovery of the amount advanced to the complainant for the purchase of the vehicle.
8. According to the complainant since the tractor alone was registered he could not ply the vehicle through the road. Though the complainant contented that he had to suffer lot of inconveniences due to the non-registration of compressor, nothing is before us to substantiate the same. This Forum is at a loss to assertain as to why the complainant has failed to bring forth evidence to substantiate his contentions in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party is only the manager of the finance company. The Finance company is not properly arrayed in the complaint the mis-joinder for the same reasons calls for rejection of this complaint. It is pertinent to note that the complainant failed to cross-examine the first opposite party who mounted the box after filing his proof affidavit incorporating his contentions to substantiate his case which has not been controverted for reasons of the complainant.
9. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has substantially failed to prove the contentions raised against the opposite parties. In law this Forum is at liberty to hold the case otherwise than dismissing it. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.