BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.5/13.

Date of instt.: 04.02.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 17.03.2015.

Tarsem son of Umed, resident of Village Sinand, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

The Amol Agro Tractor, Kaithal through Rajesh and Satpal, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  It is further alleged that the Op has not given the RC along with insurance of the above-said tractor inspite of several visits to the Op.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 09.01.2012, the complainant purchased on credit basis a new tractor model 3630 Turbo Super of make New Holland from the Op vide delivery letter bearing Sr. No.314.  The total price of the above-said tractor was Rs.7,00,000/- and that time, the complainant gave assurance that he will make the payment of new tractor very soon by selling his old tractor.  On 09.04.2012, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by selling his old tractor to be adjusted towards the sale price of tractor purchased by him and in lieu of receiving the part payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, the OP issue receipt No.202 dt. 09.04.2012 to the complainant and gave assurance that he will pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the next month after the harvesting season of wheat crop and accordingly, the Op issued sale letter in the name of complainant on that day, however, no sale letter/bill of said tractor was handed over to the complainant as the payment was made partly.  Thereafter, several times the Op contacted the complainant to hand over sale letter by getting the remaining payment amount of the above-said tractor but he always lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext.  The complainant did not pay the outstanding consideration, nor came to collect the sale letter/bill from the respondent firm, while since the time of getting delivery he has been utilizing the said tractor for his own use.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  The complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  The Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  The Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  The complainant has also produced the copy of bill (Annexure A3) on record in which the sale price of the tractor is shown as Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant has also placed the copy of undertaking (Annexure A4) in which the complainant has given undertaking to the effect that he had purchased the tractor from the Op for sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and out of Rs.7,00,000/- he has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the company on 09.04.2012 and he will deposit remaining Rs.2,00,000/- immediately and he has got insured the said tractor on the temporary number and there is no responsibility of firm.  Ld. Counsel of complainant vehemently contended that the Ops put his signatures on blank papers in good faith.  Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.17.03.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.5/13.

Date of instt.: 04.02.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 17.03.2015.

Tarsem son of Umed, resident of Village Sinand, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

The Amol Agro Tractor, Kaithal through Rajesh and Satpal, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  It is further alleged that the Op has not given the RC along with insurance of the above-said tractor inspite of several visits to the Op.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 09.01.2012, the complainant purchased on credit basis a new tractor model 3630 Turbo Super of make New Holland from the Op vide delivery letter bearing Sr. No.314.  The total price of the above-said tractor was Rs.7,00,000/- and that time, the complainant gave assurance that he will make the payment of new tractor very soon by selling his old tractor.  On 09.04.2012, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by selling his old tractor to be adjusted towards the sale price of tractor purchased by him and in lieu of receiving the part payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, the OP issue receipt No.202 dt. 09.04.2012 to the complainant and gave assurance that he will pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the next month after the harvesting season of wheat crop and accordingly, the Op issued sale letter in the name of complainant on that day, however, no sale letter/bill of said tractor was handed over to the complainant as the payment was made partly.  Thereafter, several times the Op contacted the complainant to hand over sale letter by getting the remaining payment amount of the above-said tractor but he always lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext.  The complainant did not pay the outstanding consideration, nor came to collect the sale letter/bill from the respondent firm, while since the time of getting delivery he has been utilizing the said tractor for his own use.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  The complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  The Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  The Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  The complainant has also produced the copy of bill (Annexure A3) on record in which the sale price of the tractor is shown as Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant has also placed the copy of undertaking (Annexure A4) in which the complainant has given undertaking to the effect that he had purchased the tractor from the Op for sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and out of Rs.7,00,000/- he has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the company on 09.04.2012 and he will deposit remaining Rs.2,00,000/- immediately and he has got insured the said tractor on the temporary number and there is no responsibility of firm.  Ld. Counsel of complainant vehemently contended that the Ops put his signatures on blank papers in good faith.  Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.17.03.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.5/13.

Date of instt.: 04.02.2013. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 17.03.2015.

Tarsem son of Umed, resident of Village Sinand, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

The Amol Agro Tractor, Kaithal through Rajesh and Satpal, Ambala Road, Kaithal.

..……..Opposite Party.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. H.S.Nain, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate for the opposite party.

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  It is further alleged that the complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  It is further alleged that the Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  It is further alleged that the Op has not given the RC along with insurance of the above-said tractor inspite of several visits to the Op.  This way, the Op is deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 09.01.2012, the complainant purchased on credit basis a new tractor model 3630 Turbo Super of make New Holland from the Op vide delivery letter bearing Sr. No.314.  The total price of the above-said tractor was Rs.7,00,000/- and that time, the complainant gave assurance that he will make the payment of new tractor very soon by selling his old tractor.  On 09.04.2012, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by selling his old tractor to be adjusted towards the sale price of tractor purchased by him and in lieu of receiving the part payment of Rs.5,00,000/-, the OP issue receipt No.202 dt. 09.04.2012 to the complainant and gave assurance that he will pay the outstanding amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in the next month after the harvesting season of wheat crop and accordingly, the Op issued sale letter in the name of complainant on that day, however, no sale letter/bill of said tractor was handed over to the complainant as the payment was made partly.  Thereafter, several times the Op contacted the complainant to hand over sale letter by getting the remaining payment amount of the above-said tractor but he always lingered on the matter on one or the other pretext.  The complainant did not pay the outstanding consideration, nor came to collect the sale letter/bill from the respondent firm, while since the time of getting delivery he has been utilizing the said tractor for his own use.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops.  On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant was having an old New Holland Tractor for cultivation of his agri. Land.  The complainant approached the Op in the month of January, 2012 at Kaithal in the office and asked the Op about the quality and price of New Holland Tractor.  The Op told the sale price of the new tractor Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash to the Op and also gave old New Holland Tractor in lieu of new tractor.  The Op received the expenses of the RC and insurance from the complainant and promised to give the RC and insurance to the complainant within a month.  The complainant has also produced the copy of bill (Annexure A3) on record in which the sale price of the tractor is shown as Rs.7,00,000/-.  The complainant has also placed the copy of undertaking (Annexure A4) in which the complainant has given undertaking to the effect that he had purchased the tractor from the Op for sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and out of Rs.7,00,000/- he has deposited Rs.5,00,000/- with the company on 09.04.2012 and he will deposit remaining Rs.2,00,000/- immediately and he has got insured the said tractor on the temporary number and there is no responsibility of firm.  Ld. Counsel of complainant vehemently contended that the Ops put his signatures on blank papers in good faith.  Thus, before proceeding ahead, we would like to mention that there are the intricate questions of law and facts, which require elaborate evidence and the same is not possible in this time-bound proceedings.  In this context, we are fortified with the observations made in the case titled Love Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh 2007(4) CPJ page 305 (NC) wherein it has been observed by Hon’ble National Commission that Complicated issues involved, not adjudicable summarily-Dismissed with liberty to seek remedy in Civil Court and in the case reported as M/s. The Bills through its Proprietor Vs. PNB 1998(1) CPC page 150, Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh, wherein it has been mentioned that Complicated issues being involved, the matter needs to be decided by Civil Court-Complaint stands dismissed.

7.     In view of above discussion, we disposed off the complaint accordingly.  However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the civil court or court of competent jurisdiction, if so desired and in that eventuality, complainant will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of Limitation Act and the time taken during the pendency of this complaint shall be exempted.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.17.03.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.