BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 121 of 2015

Date of Institution: 02.03.2015

Date of Decision: 16.10.2015

1. Sarwan Singh and
2. Baljit Singh sons of Sher Singh, residents of Village: Chhajjal Waddi, Tehsil & District Amritsar.  

Complainants

Versus

1. Sonalika International Tractors, Nirvair Tractors, Ajnala, Branch Lopoke Road, Chogawan, Tehsil: Ajnala.
2. Punjab National Bank, Branch Village Chamiari, Tehsil and District Amritsar.
3. District Transport Officer, Amritsar.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh. Inderjit Lakhra, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.  U.K.Gaind, Advocate

              For the Opposite Party No. 2 : Exparte

              For the Opposite Party No. 3 : Exparte.   

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by the complainants  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that they purchased tractor Sonalika make bearing RC No.PB-02-BV-6569 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3 lacs which was got financed by them from Opposite Party No. 2 and its sale price was paid by Opposite Party No. 2  directly to Opposite Party No.1. Said tractor was duly hypothecated with Opposite Party No. 2-Bank. The amount of Rs.25,000/- was taken by Opposite Party No.1 for getting the RC prepared from Opposite Party No.3    from the complainants. Thereafter, the complainants cleared the loan account of the Opposite Party No.1 by paying all the installments on 22.1.2015 and said tractor was released from mortgage and there is no lien/ charge over the said tractor. The original RC of the tractor in question was kept by Opposite Party No.1 with Opposite Party No. 2 –Bank, but even after adjusting the total loan amount, the RC of the tractor has not been handed over by the Opposite Parties  to the complainants so far despite repeated requests and demands. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to hand over the RC of the tractor. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the present complaint is barred by law of limitation as the tractor in dispute was purchased by the complainants from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.11.2010 and the present complaint  has been filed in the year 2015. The complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands and have concealed the true and material facts from the knowledge of this Forum. The complainant had purchased the tractor in question from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.11.2010 for a sum of Rs.5,15,000/- vide bill/ retail invoice No. 387 dated 24.11.2000 and it was hypothecated with Opposite Party No. 2. However, it is wrong that an amount of Rs.25,000/- was taken by Opposite Party No.1 from the complainants for getting the RC of the tractor in question prepared from Opposite Party No.3    as alleged. The Opposite Party No.1 never charged any alleged  amount for the preparation of the RC of the tractor in question.     While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 were duly served. Initially, Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 appeared through their representative, but later on, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3, so Opposite Party No.3   was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.5.2015 of this Forum. Similarly, Opposite Party No. 2  was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 27.7.2015 of this Forum.  However, before proceeding exparte, Opposite Party No. 2 filed written version in which it was submitted that the complainants have not come to this Forum with clean hands and the complainants have got no locus standi to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 2  and no cause of action arose to file the present complaint against Opposite Party No. 2. On merits, it is submitted that original RC of the tractor in question has never been deposited by the complainants with the Opposite Party No. 2  after obtaining from Opposite Party No.3    as required as per the agreement signed by them in favour of Opposite Party No. 2. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.    
4. Complainants tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sarwan Singh, complainant No.1 Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainants.
5. Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Dilbagh Singh Ex.OP1/1 and  closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by the parties, it is clear that the complainants purchased tractor Sonalika make bearing RC No.PB-02-BV-6569 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.3 lacs which was got financed by them from Opposite Party No.2. As such, said tractor was hypothecated with Opposite Party No. 2-Bank. Complainants allege that they paid Rs.25,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 at the time of purchase of the tractor in question for getting the RC of the tractor in question prepared from Opposite Party No.3. The complainants paid the entire loan amount to Opposite Party No. 2  and the Opposite Party No. 2  closed said loan account of the complainants on 22.1.2015 and the tractor was redeemed by Opposite Party No. 2, but the original RC of the said tractor was kept by Opposite Party No.1 or by Opposite Party No. 2  and not given to the complainants after adjusting the loan amount. The complainants approached Opposite Parties  No.1 and 2 so many times to release the RC of the tractor in question, but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainants. Ld.counsel for the   complainants  submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. Whereas the case of the Opposite Party No.1  is that the present complaint is barred by law of limitation as the tractor in dispute was purchased by the complainants from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.11.2010, whereas the  present complaint  has been filed on 2.3.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than 4 years. The complainants have concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complainants never paid Rs.25,000/- for the purpose of preparing RC of the tractor in question to Opposite Party No.1 nor Opposite Party No.1 has ever charged any amount for the purpose of preparing RC nor RC was to be got prepared by Opposite Party No.1 as alleged by the complainants. The complainants have filed the false and frivolous complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
9. Whereas the case of Opposite Party No. 2  is that the complainants purchased the aforesaid tractor Sonalika make bearing RC No.PB-02-BV-6569 by taking financial assistance from Opposite Party No. 2 . Neither the complainants nor Opposite Party No.1 have ever deposited the RC of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No. 2 –Bank. Moreover, Opposite Party No. 2  has no concern with the RC of the tractor. Opposite Party No. 2–Bank has been wrongly dragged by the complainants in this case. Ld.counsel for the opposite party No.2 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.2.
10. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainants purchased tractor Sonalika make bearing RC No.PB-02-BV-6569 from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.11.2010. Complainants alleged that they paid Rs.25,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 for getting the RC of the tractor of the complainant prepared from Opposite Party No.3, but the complainants could not produce any evidence in the form of receipt of Rs.25,000/- allegedly paid by the complainants to Opposite Party No.1, whereas Opposite Party No.1 has categorically denied that the complainants ever paid any amount of Rs.25,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 for getting the RC of the tractor of the complainants prepared from Opposite Party No.3. Moreover, in the year 2010 there was no precedent to the effect that the dealer who sells the vehicle to the customer used to get prepared the RC of the vehicle from the Registering Authority i.e. DTO on behalf of the complainants. The complainants could not produce any evidence to prove that they ever handed over the papers to Opposite Party No.1 and also deposited registration charges of the vehicle in question with Opposite Party No.1 for getting the RC of the vehicle prepared from Opposite Party No.3 . So, the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to get prepared the RC of the vehicle of the complainants from Opposite Party No.3. No doubt, the complainants have produced one photo copy of the receipt of RC bearing No.PB-02-BV-6569 which is valid upto 12.7.2013 allegedly issued by the office of DTO, Amritsar, but the complainants could not produce any evidence as to from whom, they procured this receipt which was issued by DTO, Amritsar. Moreover, this receipt was issued in the year 2013, whereas the tractor in question was purchased by the complainants on 24.11.2010 as is evidence from the retail invoice produced by the Opposite Parties. So, the genuineness of this receipt is also doubtful. The complainants have failed to remove this doubt. Apart from this, the complainants have stated that they paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to Opposite Party No.1 at the time of purchase of the vehicle i.e. 24.11.2010, as such cause of action accrued to the complainants for getting the RC of the vehicle in question prepared from Opposite Party No.3 on 24.11.2010, whereas they have filed the present complaint on 2.3.2015 i.e. after a period of more than 4 years. As such, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation also.
11. In view of the above discussion,  we hold that there is no merit in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 16.10.2015.                                                                (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                             President

hrg                                                              (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

                                      Member