Karnataka

Kolar

CC/59/2017

Sri.V.Muniyappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr.Sridhar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Ravindranath

07 Dec 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 23/08/2017

Date of Order: 07/12/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 07^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 59 OF 2017

Sri.V.Muniyappa,

S/o. Vasanthappa,

Aged About 41 Years,

R/at: A.Hunasenahalli,

Sidlaghatta Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.                                           ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. Ravindranatha, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) Sri. Sridhar,

Manager/Managing Director,

Swaraj Tractor Dealer,

No.27/3, Opp. To APMC Yard,

M.G.Road, Chikkaballapura Town & District.

(Rep. by Sri. C.B. Jayarama, Advocate)

 

2) The Manager/Managing Director,

Magma Fincorp Limited,

Regd. Office: Magma House,

24, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016,

West Bengal.

(Exparte)

 

3) Sri. Kiran, Manager/Managing Director,

Loan Recovery Officer,

Magma Fincorp Limited,

M.G.Road, Above Shravani TVS Show-room,

2^nd Floor, Kolar District, Kolar.

(Exparte)                                                                           …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) has sought issuance of directions to OP No.1 to rectify the technical defect of tractor bearing registration No. KA-40 TA-5802 or by taking back the said tractor and to give a new tractor and also sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from OP No.1 and also sought for issuance of directions to OP Nos.2 & 3 to waive-up the interest on the loan of said tractor, and to pay the loan amount to OP Nos.2 & 3 without interest and any other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, the complainant has purchased tractor bearing registration No. KA-40 TA-5802, Swaraj 744 FE, Chassis No. WVCE40606119057, Engine No.43024SUE06503 from OP No.1 on 13.05.2016 with the influence of OP No.1 he though purchased by availing loan from OP Nos.2 & 3.  He had paid a sum of Rs.1,07,000/- by cash to OP No.1 as advance.  As per the loan terms and conditions in 12 installments he suppose to pay a sum of Rs.61,980/- per installment.  Accordingly on 20.07.2016 he had paid a sum of Rs.61,982/- to OP No.3.  It is the contention of the complainant that, OP No.1 after introducing to him OP Nos.2 & 3 had taken his signatures to hire purchase finance agreement which is in English language without of his knowledge about the contents of the said agreement. 

 

(b)    Further he contended that, OP No.1 had assured him that, the said tractor will give 10.5 kilometer mileage per litre of diesel but the said tractor is not even giving less than 6 kilometer mileage per one litre diesel.  So he could not able to earn from the said tractor to pay the said loan.  In this regard he had issued a legal notice to OP No.1 which was not replied by OP No.1 thus the OP No.1 has rendered deficiency in service and because of this he could not able to pay the said loan so OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed a case against him Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   On issuance of notices from this Forum, OP No.1 has put in its appearance through its learned counsel and submitted its written version. 

 

04.   On perusal of order-sheet though in spite of receipt of notice OP Nos.2 & 3, since remained absent placed experte. 

 

05.   The contention of OP No.1 in their version is that, the said tractor was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 was on 07.04.2016, but not on 13.05.2016 as pleaded by the complainant in his complaint and the complainant is earning from this tractor by doing agricultural works and also from hire works.  To escape from the liability, to pay the loan amount to OP Nos.2 & 3 this complainant has filed false complaint against OP No.1. 

 

(a)    It is further contended that, there was no any sort of technical defects in the said tractor which is in good working condition, since OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed a case against complainant Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for recovery of said loan to escape from liability this complainant has filed a false complaint against OP No.1.  So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 so prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

 

06.   The complainant has submitted affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and marked documents as Exhibit-P.1 to Exhibit-P.39 and confronted document Exhibit-D.1 as follows and also faced cross-examination by the learned counsel appeared for OP No.1:-

(i) Copy of legal notice dated: 21.12.2016 – Ex.P.1

(ii) Courier receipts (03 in nos) – Ex.P.2 to P.4

(iii) Courier acknowledgments (3 in nos.) – Ex.P.5 to P.7.

(iv) Copy of letter dt.13.05.2016 (4 sheets) –Ex.P.8.

(v) Copy of registration certificate – Ex.P.9.

(vi) Letter dt.23.06.2016 – Ex.P.10.

(vii) Copy of Hire purchase finance agreement – Ex.P.11.

(viii) Copy of notice dt.26.12.2016 – Ex.P.12.

(ix) Courier receipt & acknowledgment – Ex.P.13 & P.14.

(x) Copy of notice dt.12.12.2016 – Ex.P.15.

(xi) Copy of legal notice dt.31.12.2016 – Ex.P.16.

(xii) Courier receipt dt.31.12.2016 & acknowledgment dt.31.12.2016 – Ex.P.17 & P.18.

(xiii) Copy of legal notice dt.30.12.2016 – Ex.P.19.

(xiv) Reply notice dt.01.02.2017 – Ex.P.20.

(xv) Copy of letter dt.12.01.2017 – Ex.P.21.

(xvi) Copy of letter dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.22.

(xvii) Courier receipt dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.23.

(xviii) Copy of letter dt.15.05.2017 – Ex.P.24.

(xix)   Reply letter dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.25.

(xx) Courier receipt dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.26.

(xxi) Letter dt.20.05.2017 – Ex.P.27.

(xxii) Reply notice dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.28.

(xxiii) Courier receipt dt.16.06.2017 – Ex.P.29.

(xxiv) Copy of letter dt.07.04.2017 – Ex.P.30.

(xxv) Copy of letter dt.12.07.2017 – Ex.P.31.

(xxvi) Copy of letter dt.01.07.2017 & 29.06.2017 –Ex.P.32 & P.33.

(xxvii) Copy of Official slip – Ex.P.34.

(xxviii) Service receipt dt.01.06.2016 – Ex.P.35.

(xxix) Computer receipt dt.30.08.2016 – Ex.P.36.

(xxx) Receipt dt.11.11.2016 – Ex.P.37.

(xxxi) Fourteen receipts for paying installments – Ex.P.38.

(xxxii) Owner’s Manual of tractor – Ex.P.39.

 

Document Marked while Confrontation of PW.1:-

 

1. Order from the arbitrator – Ex.D.1.

 

07.   On behalf of OP No.1 Sri. Sridhar, Authorized Dealer, has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and no documents submitted by OP No.1.

 

08.   Heard oral arguments of both counsel appeared for both parties.

 

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether the complainant has proved that, the said tractor bearing registration No. KA-40 TA-5802 is giving mileage less than 06 kilometers than the mileage of 10.5 kilometers per litre of fuel?

 

(2) If so, is there deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1 as alleged by the complainant?

 

(3) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to direct the OP Nos.2 & 3 to waive up the interest on the loan amount of said tractor?

 

(4) What order?

 

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1) to (3):-     Are in the Negative

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINTS (1) to (3):-

11.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

12.   On perusal of order-sheet OP Nos.2 & 3 since remained un-opposed of pleadings and entire documents of the complainant, even though placed exparte as there is no any allegations by the complainant against OP Nos.2 & 3 we find no case against OP Nos.2 & 3 and hence considered OP Nos.2 & 3 are as a formal parties to the proceedings of this case.

 

13.   The contention of the complainant is that, he purchased said tractor by availing loan from OP Nos.2 & 3 under the influence of OP No.1 which was manufactured with technical defects and not giving mileage of 10.5 kilometers per litre of fuel as assured by OP No.1 while purchasing and not even getting mileage of 06 kilometers thus he could not able to earn from the said tractor and cannot pay the said loan.

 

14.   Contrary to this OP No.1 has contended that, the said tractor was purchased by the complainant on 07.04.2016 and not on 13.05.2016 as pleaded by the complainant.  The said tractor is in very good condition and there is no any sort of technical defects in it and the complainant is getting profit from the said tractor since OP Nos.2 & 3 have filed a case against him Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act for recovery of said loan to escape from the liability the complainant has filed a false case against OP No.1.

 

15.   On perusal of entire documents, pleadings and deposition portion of the complainant we do not find any evidence as to show that, the complainant has purchased the said tractor on 13.05.2016 and nowhere it is found that, the said tractor will give 10.5 kilometer mileage per one litre of diesel and also in his cross-examination he adduced as, he availed service of tractor from OP No.1 regularly as said by OP No.1, but the documents submitted by him with regard to availing of services shows that, he though availed service from different service center and complainant has not submitted any expert opinion about there is/was any technical defect in the said tractor.

 

16.   So without having any supportive, documentary or oral evidence of any expert it is not possible for us to believe that, the said tractor is technically defective one.  Simply because of the oral submission of the complainant we cannot believe that, the said tractor is technically defective so we come to the conclusion that, the complainant has failed to prove his case and hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 in this regard.

 

17.   The complainant has prayed for waive up of interest on loan though he availed from OP Nos.2 & 3 and also prayed for issuance of directions to OP Nos.2 & 3 to take the loan amount from him without interest.  In his entire pleadings he had not submitted how this Forum has jurisdiction to allow his prayer.  In our view as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 there is no provision/jurisdiction to order for waive up of interest on loan and to take the loan without interest.  While availing the loan itself the complainant would be in the knowledge of liability to pay interest on the said loan and thus availed loan from OP Nos.2 & 3 now he has come up with this case asking for waive up of interest would be surprising to us.  Hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to order for waive-up of interest on loan.  Therefore we consider OP Nos.2 & 3 are the formal parties to this case so we find no case against OP Nos.2 & 3 and accordingly we answered point (1) to (3) are in the Negative. 

 

POINT (4):-

18.   In view of the above discussions on Points (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 07^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT