JUDGEMENT<br /> <br /> By Sri. Pampapathi President:-<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. Haseena Begaum against the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the Opposite to return the tractor after repair or to direct him to return the price of the tractor to the extent of Rs. 3,85,500/-, to direct him to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of his agriculture and to award an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost.<br /> <br /> 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she is the owner of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/T 8587 it met with an accident on 08-12-05 on the date of accident itself, she left the tractor to the showroom of opposite No.1 for repair on deferred payment. Opposite No.2 is the manufacturer of the said tractor, but opposite No-1 not repaired the tractor and not returned it to her in-spite of several requests and thereafter he closed his shop, under the circumstances there is a deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents and thereby this complaint is filed by her for the reliefs as noted in it.<br /> <br /> 3. The Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have been placed Ex-parte. <br /> <br /> 4. In-view of the facts and circumstances of this case. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that Respondent No-1 is the sub-dealer of the tractor and Respondent No-2 is the manufacturer of it and on 08-12-05 she left her tractor bearing No. KA-36/T8587 in the show room of Respondent No-1 for repair on deferred payment but Respondent No-1 neither repaired nor returned un-repaired tractor to her, inspite of several requests and thereby both Respondents found guilty under deficiency in their services.?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?<br /> <br /> 3. What order?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> (1) In the affirmative against Respondent No.1 and in negative against Respondent No-2.<br /> <br /> (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement.<br /> <br /> (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed <br /> to pass the final order for the following :<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1 & 2:-<br /> <br /> 6. In order to prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. Documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5 are marked. The opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have been placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 7 We have gone through the facts pleaded by the complainant in her complaint, affidavit-evidence and documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5, we are of the view that the complainant not made any allegations against opposite No-2 either with regard to manufacturing defects of the tractor or any other kinds of defects in the tractor. Admittedly she left her damaged tractor in the accident in the show room of opposite No-1 for repair, under these circumstances there is no cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint against opposite No.2, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite No.2 towards the complainant, accordingly complaint against Respondent No-2 is not maintainable.<br /> <br /> 8. As regards to the allegations made by the complainant against opposite Nos. 1 material records placed before us are Ex.P-1 which is a letter given by opposite No.1 dt. 16-12-06, in the said letter opposite No.1 himself admitted the receipt of the said tractor from the complainant for repair in his showroom. Ex.P-2 is the letter dt. 16-12-06 supports the same as the opposite No.1 received the said tractor for repair which was damaged in the accident.<br /> <br /> 9. Ex.P-3 is the RC of the tractor which stands in the name of complainant. Under these circumstances it is very much clear that the complainant being the RC holder and owner of the tractor bearing No. KA-36/T8587 left it in the showroom of opposite No.1 for repair as it was damaged in the accident. Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 together discloses that as on the date of those two letters, opposite No.1 not repaired to the tractor and not delivered it to the complainant. In the said circumstances further allegations of the complainant against opposite No.1, as he neither repaired tractor nor returned it un-repaired to the complainant, on subsequent it till today.<br /> <br /> 10. The affidavit-evidence of complainant is corroborating with her pleadings and documentary evidences at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3, under these circumstances the complainant established the deficiency in service on the part of opposite No.1 towards her and thereby we answered Point No.1 in affirmative against opposite No-1 only.<br /> <br /> 11. As regards to the reliefs claimed by the complainant are concerned, the first relief of her is to direct Respondent to return the tractor after proper repairs or alternatively he prayed for to direct the opposite No-1 to refund the price of the tractor amounting to Rs. 3,85,500/-. The second relief is a alternative relief to the main relief, there are no evidences to come to the conclusion that the price of the tractor is Rs. 3,85,500/-. However it is not a proper case to direct the opposite No.1 to refund the price of the tractor to the complainant as prayed in her alternative relief, we are of the view that granting main prayer of the complainant is proper, as such we have directed the opposite No.1 to return the tractor bearing No. KA-36/T8587 to the complainant after proper repairs by getting repair charges.<br /> <br /> 12. As regards to the third relief is concerned, the complainant prayed for to award an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as reimbursement cost of the agriculture for cropping of seasons, we are of the view that Consumer Forum is not a Forum to cater the loss of his business, it only provides payment of compensation for deficiency in service on the part of opposite No.1. In this regard we have referred and followed the principles of ruling reported in 2009 CTJ 535 (CP) NCDRC Purvanchal Cables and Tractors Pvt. Ltd., V/s. Assam State Electricity Board and Others, accordingly we rejected the third prayer of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 13. As regards to the fourth prayer of the complainant is concerned, we have noticed deficiency in service of opposite No. 1, as such complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/-under the head of deficiency in service and thereby granting amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental tension is rejected.<br /> <br /> 14. As regards to the cost of this litigation is concerned, we have granted a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of this litigation and complainant is entitled to recover it from the opposite No.1, accordingly we answered point No.2<br /> <br /> POINT NO.3:-<br /> <br /> 15. In view of our finding on Point No-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No.1 is partly allowed with cost.<br /> <br /> The opposite No.1 is directed to return the tractor of the complainant bearing No. KA-36/T8587 with proper repairs on payment of repair charges by the complainant and thereby the alternative relief of the complainant is rejected.<br /> <br /> The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposite No.1.<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant against opposite No.2 is dismissed. <br /> <br /> One month time is given to the opposite No.1 to comply the above said order from the date of this judgment.<br /> <br /> Intimate the parties accordingly. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 16-09-09)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Pampapathi,<br /> President,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj, Member,<br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, <br /> Member. <br /> District Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />