PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Dated this the 31^st day of December 2011

                                                                                                        Filed on : 04-11-2009

Present :

          Shri. A  Rajesh,                                                     President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.                                   Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma,                                           Member

                                         CC593/2009

     Between

Yesodharan K.M.                             :        Complainant

Kakkatharayil house,                        (By Adv. K.P. Paulose,

Malayidamthuruth,                            Murimattom, Aiswarya building,

Perumbavoor,                                  109 Valanjambalam, Ernakulam)

Ernakulam.

                                                And

 1.  Shaji (Prop),                               :         Opposite parties

      M/s. Indian Motors,                     (1^st 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.   Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd,         (2^nd O.P. by Adv. Saiby Jose Kidan-

     Thadikkaran centre,                    goor, KMS Wakf Complex,

      4^th floor, Palharivattom road.     Room-1, Providence road, Providence)

     Cochin-682 016.                        Junction, Cochin-682 018)

3.   Manager, Atlas Co. Ltd.,                     ( Absent)

      Near LPG Pump,

     Thammanam, Enakulam.

                                                  O R D E R

A  Rajesh, President.

          The case of the complainant is as follows:

Attracted by the assurances of the 1^st opposite party the complainant purchased a compressor tractor from the 1^st opposite party with the financial  assistance of the 2^nd opposite party.  The tractor was registered at the instance of the 1^st opposite party.  The  compressor fitted with the tractor was a duplicate one. On enquiry  it is revealed that the compressor was made at Kunnatoor .  The complainant could not ply the vehicle on public road since it is registered as tractor.  In fact the opposite party delivered the tractor to the complainant with the compressor after its registration.  The complainant had to suffer financial loss and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.  This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party.

The complainant had purchased a tractor from the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is only the dealer of the tractor.  The complainant himself had arranged finance and purchased the  vehicle.  The compressor was purchased by the complainant and requested the 1^st opposite party to fit  the compressor with the tractor.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. 

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party.

The 2^nd opposite party   is only the financer of the vehicle.  The 2^nd opposite party has provided finance for purchasing the compressor.  It is the duty of the complainant to enquire and ensure about the compressor whether the same is original or not.  The complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.

4.  The complainant was examined as PW1.  Exbts. A1 to A4 were marked  on his side.  The 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1.  Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd 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 lakhs from the opposite parties?

6. According to the complainant he purchased a tractor with compressor from the 1^st opposite party.  It is contented that the 1^st opposite party failed to register the compressor and the registering authority did not incorporate it in the RC book for the same reason.  It is also contented that the compressor supplied by the 1^st opposite party is a duplicate one for which no evidence has been brought forth by the complainant other than the allegation. For the same reasons though  the complainant has raised various contentions in his complaint, he has not taken any steps to substantiate the same in this Forum.  During evidence the complainant was cross-examined as PW1.  He deposed that the 1^st opposite party has fixed the compressor with the tractor  and delivered the same to the complainant.  The complainant further deposed that he has not mentioned the same in his complaint.  It is pertinent to note that the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1, but the complainant failed to cross-examine him reasons  for his own.

7. Legally no liability can be fastened on the 2^nd opposite party since they have  only been provider of financial assistance to the complainant to purchase the vehicle.

8 From the averments and documents on record  the complainant has failed to convince this Forum of the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties which calls for the dismissal of the complaint squarely.  Ordered so.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of December 2011

                                                                        Sd/- A Rajesh, President.

                                                          Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member

                                                          Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

                                                                    Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                   Senior Superintendent.