THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT MADIKERI, KODAGU
Dated this the 26thday of November,2021
PRESENT
SRI . PRAKASHA K. : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. B.NIRMAL KUMAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI. C.RENUKAMBHA : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3/2020
(Admitted on:10.01.2020)
Sri. T.M. Ganapathy,
Aged 59 years,
S/o Late Medappa,
R/o. Hari Hara Village and Post,
South Kodagu.
(Advocate for the Complainant: C.K.P)
…..Complainant
VERSUS
1.The Genaral Manager,
Customer Care Department,
International Tractors Ltd.
Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur,
Punjab-146001.
2. The Manager,
Poninani’s Tractors & Implements,
Dealer for Sonalik
Dealer for Sonalik Tractors Spares and Service
Kiakery , Gonikoppal
S. Kodagu.
(Opposite Party No.1 :D.M.K)
(Opposite Party No 2 : In person)……………. Opposite Parties
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI .PRAKASHA K.
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Act seeking direction to Opposite party to pay the compensation sum of Rs. 1Lakh and order to handover a new Tractor with Pump set from the showroom of the Opposite Party by demonstrating the same in front of Complainant along with damages for having repented under the hands of Opposite Party all these months from the date of filing of the petition for dereliction and for the deficiency of service by which the Complainant has undergone mental agony, sufferings , monetary loss, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that in order to cultivate the property he had purchased Sonalika GT 20 Tractor along with Irrigation Pump set from Opposite Party No.1 and 2 above mentioned at the price of Rs.4,05,901/- and the same was purchased as on 15.02.2019 vide Delivery Notice of you No.2 with Eng. No.A52374E8, Chassis No.EMGSG756650G. In order to purchase the said Tractor and Pump Set by raising loan from KDCC Bank Kutta and after such purchase the said Tractor was taken to his place.
3. The Complainant submits that as per Demonstration made by Opposite Party No.2 on 29.03.2019 wherein during such Demonstration the said machine did not worked properly and the same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunctions. That the said running condition of the said Tractor/Pump Set was not satisfactory nor it worked to its utmost and also started to give problems. The Diesel Tank started to leak, irrigation pump started to leak from its Gear Box Area, and the Pump did not pumped water as it had along with other problems.
4. The Complainant submits that in this regard he had called upon Opposite Party No.2 and thereby showed the said defects of the Pump Set and the Tractor. Even to this date Complainant has not got the said tractor registered as per law and after making known such defects to Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 were called upon and Opposite Party No.2 after jotting down such faults and also defects has taken back the tractor so also the pump set back to their godown/showroom wherein the same has not been replaced or returned back, since the said pump set had warranty period and also guarantee period. Both Opposite Party have handed over a defective Tractor with Pump Set to the Complainant. By handing over the defective products the Opposite Party have caused deficiency in discharging the duties and thereby caused unfair trade practice and have played upon the mind of the Complainant of which the Complainant is now without the tractor and also the product.
5. The Complainant submits that the 2nd of the Opposite Party have taken back the defective Tractor, and assured that he will replace new Tractor within a week. But the Opposite Party No.2 has not replaced new Tractor till today to the Complainant. The defective Tractor is under the custody of the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant is not at all responsible to pay the instalment amount to the bank due to the acts so carried out by the Opposite Party jointly and severally.
6. The Complainant submits that he is a poor person having hand to mouth living being at the present stage/state of affairs of which he had longed with the Opposite Party many a times of which there was no proper response as such the Complainant had caused legal notice to the Opposite Party on 04.04.2019 wherein the said notice has been served on the Opposite Party wherein the Opposite Party have sent a vague reply to the said notice alleging all absurd things upon the Complainant himself.
7. The Complainant submits that have committed deficiency in discharging its duties and also rendering service. The Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damage to the Complainant so also as compensation.
8. After service of notice to opponents, Opposite Party No.1&2 appeared through their counsel the Opposite Party .1 filed the version as under:-
He contends that Opposite PartyNo.2 is not the agent of the Opposite Party No.1. The relationship in between Opposite Party 1 &2 is that of seller and buyer. He further contends that Opposite Party No.1 being manufacturer never deals with any customer directly or sell any Tractor directly to any customer. Hence Opposite Party No .1 contends that there is no privity of contract in between complainant and the Opposite Party.1. He further contends that the Tractor in question was sold to Ponnimanys Tractors and Implements vide invoice no 92240892 dated 31.07.2018.
9. He further contends that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Opposite party no.1 is no manufacturer of any kind of pump hence the manufacturer of pump is necessary party in the present proceedings.
10. Opposite party further denied that the Tractor had any problem has alleged or that it did not work properly as alleged so far as any allegations regarding Tractor are concerned. He further contends that tractors are manufactured by the Opposite party no.1 with latest techniques and quality control system of ISO9001 & 14001. The tractors are sent to dealers for sale after proper testing and quality checks hence there is no question of any defects in the tractor. That as per warranty clause 4 (D) (c) of the warranty policy of Opposite party no.1 the warranty is not available to :
C) Tractor which have been subjected to misuse , negligence, alteration, accident, any abnormal use or which have been used with parts not manufactured or supplied by ITL, if in the sole judgement of ITL, such use affects performance or reliability of tractors.
11. Opposite party NO.2 further contends that they are not aware of handling over the Tractor to the Opposite party No.2 nor any such matter was brought to their knowledge. He further contends that as per warranty terms and condition tractor once sold is not returned or replaced. Hence there is no question of the replacement of the Tractor. Opposite party No.1 further contends that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No.1 nor there is any allegation against the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore Opposite Party No.1 contends that they are not liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant has alleged. Therefore Opposite Party No.1 prays that this complaint may be dismissed with special cost.
12. Opposite Party No .2 filed version as under:-
He contends that except Para 1&2, he denied all the other allegation made against him in the complaint. Further he denied the allegation that in order to cultivate the property complainant had purchased Tractor and irrigation pump set. Further Opposite Party No.2 contends that complainant has not purchased any licence to run the Tractor and did not possessed any well water tank(ಕೆರೆ) or water facitiltese in his land and only for the purpose of getting fancacial benifits from the government and to sell the Tractor and Pump set for more price to other he had purchesed the same. Oppositer Party No.2 further denied that the running condition of the said New Tractor/ Pump set was not satisfactory and also started to give problem. He further denied that desel Tank started to leak irrigation pump satred to give problems. further he submited that as per horse enargy they are ready to demonstarate the running condition of the alleged Tractor and Pump set provided that they should produce the said Tractor and Pump set before this commission. Further Opposite Party No .2 denied the allegation made in the Para 6 of the complaint that they have taken back the Tractor in to their custody but they contends that in order to came from the clutches of being bank lone complainant created a new story and same facts are proved in his bank transaction. Opposite Party No .2 further denied that the complainant is a poor person on the other hand he contends complainant is a coffee planter . Further Opposite Party No .2 contends that, they already stated in their notice to the complainant that they kept the vehicle of the complainant in their ground floor with safe manner and therefore Opposite Party No .2 contends that complainant has to pay sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as a form of ground floor rent and Rs 50,000/- cost and Rs 1 Lakh compensation and decree the case accordingly.
13. We heard the arguments on Opposite Party No .2 side. Complainant furnished written notes of arguments. Complainant also furnished examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as CW-1. Complaint also produced 13 documents. Which are marked as ExP1 to ExP.13. Opposite Party No .1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-1. Opposite Party No .1 furnished 3 documents which are marked as Ex-R1 to Ex-R-3 and also Opposite party No.2 also filed examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-II and produced 15 documents marked as EX-R-4 to R-18.
14. In view of the above said facts, the points that arise for our consideration in the case are:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves that
there is deficiency in service on the
part of Opposite Party?
(2) whether the Complainant is
entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
(3) What order?
15. We have considered the arguments submitted by the party and also considered the materials that, placed before the Commission and answered the points are as follows:
Point No.(1) : In the negative
Point No.(2) : partly in the affirmative
Point No.(3) : As per the final order.
REASONS
16. Point No. 1:
The specific case of the complainant that as per the Demonstration made by Opposite Party No.2 on 29.03.2019 wherein during such Demonstration the said machine did not worked properly and the same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunctions. That the said running condition of the said Tractor/Pump Set was not satisfactory nor it worked to its utmost and also started to give problems. In the complainant it is further stated that the Diesel Tank started to leak, irrigation pump started to leak from its Gear Box Area, and the Pump did not pumped water as it had along with other problems. Thus entire burden casted on complainant side to prove the deficiency in service on the part of complainant. On the other hand Opposite Party No .2 denied the above allegation made by the complainant . on the other hand he specifically contends that only for the purpose of getting financial benefits from the government and to sell the Tractor and Pump set for more price to other he had purchesed the same and he denid that the running condition of the said New Tractor/ Pump set was not satisfactory. Further Oppositt Party No.2 spercifically submits that as per horse enargy they are ready to demonstarate the running condition of the alleged Tractor and Pump set provide that they should produce the said Tractor and Pump set before this commission.
17. We have already stated that entire burden lies on the complainant to prove the defects of the Tractor and pump set on the complainant side. In this case complainant has to produced reliable expert evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the said Tractor and pump set. No expert opinion or technical person opinion produce by the complainant to prove the same. Thus reliable expert evidence is very much necessary to show as to whether the said machine did not work properly and same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunction.
18. In this case no effort made by the Complainant to appoint technical person to prove the manufecturing defects.
Thus we can not comes to the conclusion that Opposie Partiese have commited defeciency in service. Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.
19. Point No.2
In this commission already opined that there is no deficiency in service on the part of complainant. In other words complainant failed to prove there is a defects on the said Tractor and Pump set. But in the version Opposite Party No .2 specifically contends that they kept the Tractor and Pump set in their ground floor. Therefore the version of Opposite Party No .2 clearly indicates that at present the alleged Tractor and Pump set are in the custody of Opposite Party No .2. Thereby we directed the Opposite Party No .2 to return the Tractor with Pump set from the custody of Opposite Party No .2 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. However the complainant is not entitled any compensation and other relief as prayed in the complaint. Accordingly point no.2 answered in partly in affirmative.
20. Point No.3
In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is allowed in part.
Opposite Party No.2 is directed to return the Tractor and Pump set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Parties are directed to bare their own costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 16 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26th day of November, 2021)
(B. NIRMAL KUMAR) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI | (C.RENUKAMBHA) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI | (PRAKASH K.) PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI |
ANNEXTURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri. T.M.Ganapathy, (Complainant)
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant
Ex.C-1: Xerox copy of the quotation. Ex.C-2: Xerox copy of the bill. Ex.C-3: Xerox copy of the Delivery note Ex.C-4 : Xerox copy of the Insurance PolicyEx.C-5: Xerox copy of the pass book of the complainantEx.C-6 : Xerox copy of the letter Ponnimanys Tractor and Implements.Ex.C-7 : Xerox copy of the noticeEx.C-8 : Xerox copy of the replyEx.C-9 : Notice dated 23.04.2019Ex.C-10: BillEx.C-11 : Notice dated. 04.04.2019Ex.C-12 :Notice dated 17.09.2019Ex.C-13 : Notice dated 05.09.2019Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party: RW-1: Tadiyappanda .U Narendra. RW-2: Rajnish Kumar Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:- ExR-1 Letter of appointment Ex-R-2: Tax invoice Ex-R3: Warranty policy Ex-R4:Bank letter dated 18.02.2018 ExR-5: Legal notice dated 04.04.2019 ExR-6: Xerox copy of Legal notice reply dated 12.04.2019 ExR-7:Bank notice of Kutta Branch ExR-8: Bank reply dated 24.04.2019 Ex.R-9: Xerox copy of Temporary registration of certificate Ex.R-10: Acknowledgement dated 05.04.2019 Ex.R-11:Police endorsement dated 02.05.2019
Ex.R-12: Xerox copy of Reply notice dated 02.05.2019 Ex.R-13:Bank notice dated 18.06.2019 Ex.R-14: Xerox copy of Legal notice dated 05.09.2019 Ex.R-15:Legal notice dated 17.09.2019 Ex.R-16: Xerox copy of Insurance policy ExR-17:Xerox copy of certificate of Registration ExR-18: Xerox copy of ‘B’ extract Dated:26.11.2021 PRESIDENT | |
THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, AT MADIKERI, KODAGU
Dated this the 26thday of November,2021
PRESENT
SRI . PRAKASHA K. : HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI. B.NIRMAL KUMAR : HON’BLE MEMBER
SRI. C.RENUKAMBHA : HON’BLE MEMBER
ORDERS IN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3/2020
(Admitted on:10.01.2020)
Sri. T.M. Ganapathy,
Aged 59 years,
S/o Late Medappa,
R/o. Hari Hara Village and Post,
South Kodagu.
(Advocate for the Complainant: C.K.P)
…..Complainant
VERSUS
1.The Genaral Manager,
Customer Care Department,
International Tractors Ltd.
Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur,
Punjab-146001.
2. The Manager,
Poninani’s Tractors & Implements,
Dealer for Sonalik
Dealer for Sonalik Tractors Spares and Service
Kiakery , Gonikoppal
S. Kodagu.
(Opposite Party No.1 :D.M.K)
(Opposite Party No 2 : In person)……………. Opposite Parties
ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT
SRI .PRAKASHA K.
1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 Act seeking direction to Opposite party to pay the compensation sum of Rs. 1Lakh and order to handover a new Tractor with Pump set from the showroom of the Opposite Party by demonstrating the same in front of Complainant along with damages for having repented under the hands of Opposite Party all these months from the date of filing of the petition for dereliction and for the deficiency of service by which the Complainant has undergone mental agony, sufferings , monetary loss, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The Complainant submits that in order to cultivate the property he had purchased Sonalika GT 20 Tractor along with Irrigation Pump set from Opposite Party No.1 and 2 above mentioned at the price of Rs.4,05,901/- and the same was purchased as on 15.02.2019 vide Delivery Notice of you No.2 with Eng. No.A52374E8, Chassis No.EMGSG756650G. In order to purchase the said Tractor and Pump Set by raising loan from KDCC Bank Kutta and after such purchase the said Tractor was taken to his place.
3. The Complainant submits that as per Demonstration made by Opposite Party No.2 on 29.03.2019 wherein during such Demonstration the said machine did not worked properly and the same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunctions. That the said running condition of the said Tractor/Pump Set was not satisfactory nor it worked to its utmost and also started to give problems. The Diesel Tank started to leak, irrigation pump started to leak from its Gear Box Area, and the Pump did not pumped water as it had along with other problems.
4. The Complainant submits that in this regard he had called upon Opposite Party No.2 and thereby showed the said defects of the Pump Set and the Tractor. Even to this date Complainant has not got the said tractor registered as per law and after making known such defects to Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 were called upon and Opposite Party No.2 after jotting down such faults and also defects has taken back the tractor so also the pump set back to their godown/showroom wherein the same has not been replaced or returned back, since the said pump set had warranty period and also guarantee period. Both Opposite Party have handed over a defective Tractor with Pump Set to the Complainant. By handing over the defective products the Opposite Party have caused deficiency in discharging the duties and thereby caused unfair trade practice and have played upon the mind of the Complainant of which the Complainant is now without the tractor and also the product.
5. The Complainant submits that the 2nd of the Opposite Party have taken back the defective Tractor, and assured that he will replace new Tractor within a week. But the Opposite Party No.2 has not replaced new Tractor till today to the Complainant. The defective Tractor is under the custody of the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant is not at all responsible to pay the instalment amount to the bank due to the acts so carried out by the Opposite Party jointly and severally.
6. The Complainant submits that he is a poor person having hand to mouth living being at the present stage/state of affairs of which he had longed with the Opposite Party many a times of which there was no proper response as such the Complainant had caused legal notice to the Opposite Party on 04.04.2019 wherein the said notice has been served on the Opposite Party wherein the Opposite Party have sent a vague reply to the said notice alleging all absurd things upon the Complainant himself.
7. The Complainant submits that have committed deficiency in discharging its duties and also rendering service. The Opposite Party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damage to the Complainant so also as compensation.
8. After service of notice to opponents, Opposite Party No.1&2 appeared through their counsel the Opposite Party .1 filed the version as under:-
He contends that Opposite PartyNo.2 is not the agent of the Opposite Party No.1. The relationship in between Opposite Party 1 &2 is that of seller and buyer. He further contends that Opposite Party No.1 being manufacturer never deals with any customer directly or sell any Tractor directly to any customer. Hence Opposite Party No .1 contends that there is no privity of contract in between complainant and the Opposite Party.1. He further contends that the Tractor in question was sold to Ponnimanys Tractors and Implements vide invoice no 92240892 dated 31.07.2018.
9. He further contends that the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Opposite party no.1 is no manufacturer of any kind of pump hence the manufacturer of pump is necessary party in the present proceedings.
10. Opposite party further denied that the Tractor had any problem has alleged or that it did not work properly as alleged so far as any allegations regarding Tractor are concerned. He further contends that tractors are manufactured by the Opposite party no.1 with latest techniques and quality control system of ISO9001 & 14001. The tractors are sent to dealers for sale after proper testing and quality checks hence there is no question of any defects in the tractor. That as per warranty clause 4 (D) (c) of the warranty policy of Opposite party no.1 the warranty is not available to :
C) Tractor which have been subjected to misuse , negligence, alteration, accident, any abnormal use or which have been used with parts not manufactured or supplied by ITL, if in the sole judgement of ITL, such use affects performance or reliability of tractors.
11. Opposite party NO.2 further contends that they are not aware of handling over the Tractor to the Opposite party No.2 nor any such matter was brought to their knowledge. He further contends that as per warranty terms and condition tractor once sold is not returned or replaced. Hence there is no question of the replacement of the Tractor. Opposite party No.1 further contends that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No.1 nor there is any allegation against the Opposite Party No.1. Therefore Opposite Party No.1 contends that they are not liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1 Lakh to the complainant has alleged. Therefore Opposite Party No.1 prays that this complaint may be dismissed with special cost.
12. Opposite Party No .2 filed version as under:-
He contends that except Para 1&2, he denied all the other allegation made against him in the complaint. Further he denied the allegation that in order to cultivate the property complainant had purchased Tractor and irrigation pump set. Further Opposite Party No.2 contends that complainant has not purchased any licence to run the Tractor and did not possessed any well water tank(ಕೆರೆ) or water facitiltese in his land and only for the purpose of getting fancacial benifits from the government and to sell the Tractor and Pump set for more price to other he had purchesed the same. Oppositer Party No.2 further denied that the running condition of the said New Tractor/ Pump set was not satisfactory and also started to give problem. He further denied that desel Tank started to leak irrigation pump satred to give problems. further he submited that as per horse enargy they are ready to demonstarate the running condition of the alleged Tractor and Pump set provided that they should produce the said Tractor and Pump set before this commission. Further Opposite Party No .2 denied the allegation made in the Para 6 of the complaint that they have taken back the Tractor in to their custody but they contends that in order to came from the clutches of being bank lone complainant created a new story and same facts are proved in his bank transaction. Opposite Party No .2 further denied that the complainant is a poor person on the other hand he contends complainant is a coffee planter . Further Opposite Party No .2 contends that, they already stated in their notice to the complainant that they kept the vehicle of the complainant in their ground floor with safe manner and therefore Opposite Party No .2 contends that complainant has to pay sum of Rs. 1000/- per month as a form of ground floor rent and Rs 50,000/- cost and Rs 1 Lakh compensation and decree the case accordingly.
13. We heard the arguments on Opposite Party No .2 side. Complainant furnished written notes of arguments. Complainant also furnished examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as CW-1. Complaint also produced 13 documents. Which are marked as ExP1 to ExP.13. Opposite Party No .1 filed examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-1. Opposite Party No .1 furnished 3 documents which are marked as Ex-R1 to Ex-R-3 and also Opposite party No.2 also filed examination in chief by way of affidavit and his evidence considered as RW-II and produced 15 documents marked as EX-R-4 to R-18.
14. In view of the above said facts, the points that arise for our consideration in the case are:
(1) Whether the Complainant proves that
there is deficiency in service on the
part of Opposite Party?
(2) whether the Complainant is
entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
(3) What order?
15. We have considered the arguments submitted by the party and also considered the materials that, placed before the Commission and answered the points are as follows:
Point No.(1) : In the negative
Point No.(2) : partly in the affirmative
Point No.(3) : As per the final order.
REASONS
16. Point No. 1:
The specific case of the complainant that as per the Demonstration made by Opposite Party No.2 on 29.03.2019 wherein during such Demonstration the said machine did not worked properly and the same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunctions. That the said running condition of the said Tractor/Pump Set was not satisfactory nor it worked to its utmost and also started to give problems. In the complainant it is further stated that the Diesel Tank started to leak, irrigation pump started to leak from its Gear Box Area, and the Pump did not pumped water as it had along with other problems. Thus entire burden casted on complainant side to prove the deficiency in service on the part of complainant. On the other hand Opposite Party No .2 denied the above allegation made by the complainant . on the other hand he specifically contends that only for the purpose of getting financial benefits from the government and to sell the Tractor and Pump set for more price to other he had purchesed the same and he denid that the running condition of the said New Tractor/ Pump set was not satisfactory. Further Oppositt Party No.2 spercifically submits that as per horse enargy they are ready to demonstarate the running condition of the alleged Tractor and Pump set provide that they should produce the said Tractor and Pump set before this commission.
17. We have already stated that entire burden lies on the complainant to prove the defects of the Tractor and pump set on the complainant side. In this case complainant has to produced reliable expert evidence regarding manufacturing defects in the said Tractor and pump set. No expert opinion or technical person opinion produce by the complainant to prove the same. Thus reliable expert evidence is very much necessary to show as to whether the said machine did not work properly and same started to give trouble and thereby started to malfunction.
18. In this case no effort made by the Complainant to appoint technical person to prove the manufecturing defects.
Thus we can not comes to the conclusion that Opposie Partiese have commited defeciency in service. Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative.
19. Point No.2
In this commission already opined that there is no deficiency in service on the part of complainant. In other words complainant failed to prove there is a defects on the said Tractor and Pump set. But in the version Opposite Party No .2 specifically contends that they kept the Tractor and Pump set in their ground floor. Therefore the version of Opposite Party No .2 clearly indicates that at present the alleged Tractor and Pump set are in the custody of Opposite Party No .2. Thereby we directed the Opposite Party No .2 to return the Tractor with Pump set from the custody of Opposite Party No .2 to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. However the complainant is not entitled any compensation and other relief as prayed in the complaint. Accordingly point no.2 answered in partly in affirmative.
20. Point No.3
In the result, we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the Complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is allowed in part.
Opposite Party No.2 is directed to return the Tractor and Pump set to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Parties are directed to bare their own costs.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Page No.1 to 16 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open Commission on this the 26th day of November, 2021)
(B. NIRMAL KUMAR) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI | (C.RENUKAMBHA) MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI | (PRAKASH K.) PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MADIKERI |
ANNEXTURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri. T.M.Ganapathy, (Complainant)
Documents marked on behalf of the complainant
Ex.C-1: Xerox copy of the quotation. Ex.C-2: Xerox copy of the bill. Ex.C-3: Xerox copy of the Delivery note Ex.C-4 : Xerox copy of the Insurance PolicyEx.C-5: Xerox copy of the pass book of the complainantEx.C-6 : Xerox copy of the letter Ponnimanys Tractor and Implements.Ex.C-7 : Xerox copy of the noticeEx.C-8 : Xerox copy of the replyEx.C-9 : Notice dated 23.04.2019Ex.C-10: BillEx.C-11 : Notice dated. 04.04.2019Ex.C-12 :Notice dated 17.09.2019Ex.C-13 : Notice dated 05.09.2019Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party: RW-1: Tadiyappanda .U Narendra. RW-2: Rajnish Kumar Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:- ExR-1 Letter of appointment Ex-R-2: Tax invoice Ex-R3: Warranty policy Ex-R4:Bank letter dated 18.02.2018 ExR-5: Legal notice dated 04.04.2019 ExR-6: Xerox copy of Legal notice reply dated 12.04.2019 ExR-7:Bank notice of Kutta Branch ExR-8: Bank reply dated 24.04.2019 Ex.R-9: Xerox copy of Temporary registration of certificate Ex.R-10: Acknowledgement dated 05.04.2019 Ex.R-11:Police endorsement dated 02.05.2019
Ex.R-12: Xerox copy of Reply notice dated 02.05.2019 Ex.R-13:Bank notice dated 18.06.2019 Ex.R-14: Xerox copy of Legal notice dated 05.09.2019 Ex.R-15:Legal notice dated 17.09.2019 Ex.R-16: Xerox copy of Insurance policy ExR-17:Xerox copy of certificate of Registration ExR-18: Xerox copy of ‘B’ extract Dated:26.11.2021 PRESIDENT | |
