CC Filed on 24.07.2007<br /> Disposed on 26.09.2008<br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 26th Day of September 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No.148/2007<br /> Between:-<br /> <br /> K.V.Ramakrishnappa,<br /> S/o K.Venkatappa,<br /> Aged about 55 years,<br /> R/o Abbehalli Village,<br /> Tayalur Hobli,<br /> Mulbagal Taluk. Complainant<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Chandrappa & Others)<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> 1. The General Manager,<br /> Mahendra Gujarath Tracotr,<br /> Near Viswamithra Railway Bridge,<br /> (Baroda), Gujarath State,<br /> India.<br /> <br /> 2. The General Manager (Nataraj),<br /> Sapthagiri Tractor Limited, <br /> Mahindra Gujarath Tractors Ltd.,<br /> Spare parts and Instruments,<br /> Vinayaka Talikes Compound,<br /> B.H.Road, <br /> Shimoga – 577 201.<br /> Dead by LRs -2(a) to (f)<br /> <br /> (a) Poorvan S/o Late Nataraj,<br /> Aged about 5 years.<br /> LR 2(a) is minor represented by <br /> his mother LR 2(b)<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> (b) Sri Vidya W/o Late Nataraj,<br /> Aged about 30 years, <br /> R/at Vindanagar, Kalahalli, <br /> Shimogga.<br /> <br /> (c) Shivaprakash,<br /> Aged about 60 years.<br /> <br /> (d) Prabakar @ Prabu,<br /> S/o Shivaprakash,<br /> Aged about 35 years.<br /> <br /> (e) Vasanthamma<br /> W/o Shivaprakash,<br /> Aged about 55 years.<br /> <br /> (f) Latha D/o Shiva Prakash,<br /> Aged about 20 years. <br /> All are resident of Sapthagiri Nilya,<br /> 7th Cross, Devaraja Urs Extension,<br /> Shimogga Town.<br /> <br /> 3. M.C.Venkatashivareddy @ Shivareddy,<br /> S/o Channappa,<br /> Field Officer/Agent,<br /> Sri. Sapthagiri Tractors,<br /> R/o Malganahalli Village,<br /> Agram Post, Yeldur Hobli,<br /> Srinivaspur Talu, Kolar District. <br /> (Deleted as per memo of complainant)<br /> <br /> 4. The Manager,<br /> State Bank of Mysore,<br /> Srinivaspur Branch,<br /> Srinivaspur. Opposite parties <br /> <br /> (OP-1 By Advocate Sri. H.V.Harish & others)<br /> (OP-2 LRs (a) and (b) By Sri. K.Madhusudhan & Others)<br /> (OP-2 LRs (c) to (f) By Sri. K.Veerabasappa)<br /> (OP-3 By Advocate Sri. K.V.Shankarappa & Others)<br /> (OP-4 By Advocate Sri. B.Laxmiprasad & Others)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> This is a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against opposite parties to pay <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> Rs.3,40,000/- towards the price of undelivered goods and compensation for deficiency in service to complainant with interest at 18% per annum and costs etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint may be stated as follows: That OP-1 is the manufacturer of Mahindra Shakthiman Tractor and OP-2 is dealer under OP-1 for that tractor and OP-3 is the field officer working under OP-2 and that OP-4 bank is the financer for purchase of the tractor, trailer and accessories.<br /> <br /> The complainant is an agriculturist. He approached OPs-2 and 3 for purchase of Mahindra Shakthiman Tractor and the Trailer and accessories. OP-2 issued quotation for Rs.6,54,000/- towards the prices of Tractor and Trailer with accessories.<br /> <br /> The complainant obtained agricultural loan from OP-4 bank for Rs.6,54,000/- and the bank prepared DD for Rs.6,54,000/- in favour OP-2 and handed over that DD to complainant for delivering it to OP-2. Thereafter OP-2 delivered Tractor but failed to deliver the trailer and the accessories as promised. It is alleged that the documents relating to tractor like RC, Insurance Certificate etc., were not handed over to complainant. It is alleged that OP-2 failed to give free service of tractor as agreed upon. Therefore the complainant filed the above complaint for recovery of price of undelivered materials and compensation. <br /> <br /> 3. OP-4 bank was served with notice issued by this Forum. It appeared and filed version stating that as per the request of complainant the loan was granted and the DD was handed over to complainant for delivering the same to OP-2 on receiving the materials stated in the <br /> <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> quotation. Further it contended that it had confirmed the delivery of all the materials to complainant from OP-2 and its officers had verified the possession of these materials with complainant during the inspection of his house and land. They denied short delivery of any of the materials stated in the quotation. They denied the other allegations. <br /> <br /> OP-1 appeared and contended that it is the manufacturer of Mahindra Shakthiman Tractor and OP-2 was its dealer for the said tractor for Shimogga district. It contended it was not manufacturing or dealing in any way with trailer and other accessories. Therefore it contended that the short delivery if any is not concerned with it and it is an unnecessary party.<br /> <br /> It is found that one Nataraj was the sole proprietor of Sapthagiri Tractors Ltd., (OP-2) and that the said Nataraj had died on 23.11.2006 itself i.e., long prior to filing of the complaint and that his business was closed subsequent to his death. On the application of complainant the LRs of deceased Nataraj are impleaded as OPs 2(a) to 2(f). These LRs appeared and contended that after the death of Nataraj his business was closed and that during the life time of Nataraj the sale of tractor, trailer and accessories had taken place and that complainant had received all the materials as per agreement and there was no short delivery of any materials. They contended that false case is filed as complainant was unable to repay the bank loan within stipulated time.<br /> <br /> OP-3 appeared and denied that he was field officer for Kolar district under OP-2 and contended that he has no concern with the tractor transaction alleged in the complaint and that he has played no role in the said transaction. He denied that he cheated the complainant and others colluding with OP-2. In the fag end of the proceedings the complainant <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> filed memo stating that the complaint may be dismissed as against OP-3. As per that memo the complaint against OP-3 is dismissed on 13.08.2008.<br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit by way of evidence and he had produced copy of the RC of tractor and trailer and copy of the legal notice issued to OP-2 which returned un-served. OP-2(b) filed affidavit by way of evidence OP-1 also filed affidavit by way of evidence. OP-4 has not filed any affidavit but produced copy if delivery challan dated 26.11.2005 evidencing delivery of tractor engine and copy of delivery challan dated 14.01.2006 evidencing the delivery of trailer and other accessories and copies of RC and IC relating to tractor and trailer. <br /> <br /> 5. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. It is not disputed that OP-1 is the manufacturer of Mahindra Shakthiman Tractor and it has no concern with regard to the trailer and accessories. There is no dispute regarding the delivery of tractor engine. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration.<br /> 1) Whether complainant proves that OP-2 failed to deliver trailer<br /> and other accessories as agreed?<br /> 2) Whether the complainant proves that OP-2 had charged<br /> excessive price than the price fixed by manufacturer?<br /> 3) What order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the evidence and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> Point No.1: The complainant has alleged and stated in his evidence that trailer and other accessories were not delivered to him. He admits the delivery of tractor. The contesting OPs have stated that apart from delivering the tractor, the trailer as well as accessories was delivered to complainant. The OPs have produced delivery challan dated 26.11.2005 evidencing delivery of tractor and delivery challan dated 14.01.2006 evidencing the delivery of trailer and other accessories. This delivery challan dated 14.01.2006 shows that the complainant signed the delivery challan acknowledging the receipt of goods stated in it. The said signature tallies with the admitted signatures of complainant. The tractor and trailer were registered before RTO Kolar with registration No.KA-07 T-6435 and KA-07 T-6436 respectively on 06.03.2006. The copy of insurance certificate shows that the tractor and trailer were insured for the period 24.11.2005 to 23.11.2006. On the basis of this document the learned counsel for complainant submitted this insurance certificate in the name of complainant was obtained on 24.11.2005 without actually delivering the tractor or the trailer as on that date. Admittedly on 24.11.2005 the tractor or the trailer were not delivered to complainant. It appears before brining the tractor and trailer on road for delivery purpose the temporary registration of tractor and trailer and its insurance are necessary. For that reason it appears before actual delivery the insurance certificate was obtained. It can be seen that in the insurance certificate the descriptions of tractor with Chassis No. and Engine No. are narrated. These numbers tally with the numbers stated in the RC. There is no description of trailer in the insurance certificate. It appears as the trailer was not ready for delivery the description was not given at the time of obtaining the insurance certificate. Therefore the existence of insurance certificate for tractor and trailer on 24.11.2005 does not affect the merit of the contention of OPs. The existence of RC <br /> <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> of tractor and trailer raises presumption of its existence on the date of issuing RC. Before issuing legal notice dated 22.06.2007 the complainant had not asserted the non-delivery of trailer and other accessories nearly for a period of 1½ years. In usual course if really the trailer and accessories were not delivered, the complainant would have made his grievances in writing with the concerned parties. Admittedly the complainant failed to repay the loan installments and the bank started issuing notices demanding the arrears and thereafter he got issued legal notice dated 22.06.2007 and within one month of issuing the legal notice he prepared the present complaint. Hence mere oral evidence of complainant is insufficient to accept his case that he did not receive the trailer and accessories from OP-2. For the above reasons we hold point No.1 in negative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: There is no evidence worth to be considered for the allegation that complainant was charged excessive price than the price fixed by manufacturer. The complainant has not produced any document to evidence the alleged price fixed by manufacturer for sale of tractor and trailer and other accessories. There is no oral evidence to suggest what was the price fixed for these materials by the manufacturer. Hence point No.2 is held in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: The complaint was entertained by this Forum as it was alleged originally that OP-3 was the field officer appointed by OP-2 for Kolar district to look after the business of tractor and trailer and accessories. Subsequently the complainant got dismissed the complaint against OP-3. Admittedly the transaction had taken place at Shimogga which is out side the local jurisdiction of this Forum. The mere payment of price through OP-4 bank does not constitute part of cause of action <br /> <br /> CC No.148/2007<br /> within the local jurisdiction of this Forum. Therefore it appears as rightly contended by the counsel for OPs that this Forum would lose jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the moment the complaint is got dismissed against OP-3. For the above reasons we pass the following:<br /> O R D E R<br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 26th day of September 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />