Date of Filing      : 02.03.2021

                                                                                                                               Date of Disposal: 10.06.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU P.MURUGAN, B.Com,                                                                          ….. MEMBER-II

 CC. No.16/2021

THIS FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr.Janaki Raman, S/o.Chinnasamy,

Residing at 203, Melmalligaipattu Village,

Uthukottai,

Thiruvallur District.                                                  ……Complainant.

                                                 //Vs//

The Proprietor, VJ Agro Services,

No.46, TNHB Kakkalur Bye Pass Road,

(Opp. Karnna Agencies),

Thiruvallur -602 001.                                             …..opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                      :   Mr.D.Bennington , Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                  :   Mr.B.ILayaraja, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.05.2022 in the presence of Mr.D.Bennington Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.B.Ilayaraja Advocate counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking direction to the opposite party to register Captain 250 DI 4WD Tractor bearing Engine No.D119013466, Chassis No.SC21312977 and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service  and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

The present complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/dealer and for direction;

1. To direct the opposite party to register Captain 250 DI 4WD Tractor bearing Engine No.D119013466, Chassis No.SC21312977 purchased by complainant with the concerned Regional Transport office;
2. Pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for his mental agony, loss and sufferings;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency of service caused by the opposite party;
4. To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party;
5. And direct the opposite party to pay a litigation charges for a sum of Rs.15,000/- and pass such orders as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and thus render justice.

It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.5,09,500/- inclusive of Registration charges and purchased Captain 250 D1 4WD Tractor bearing Engine No.D119013466, Chassis No.SC21312977 on 08.03.2019 from the opposite party.  The opposite party promised to get the Tractor registered soon after the purchase and also promised that they would get the subsidy from the Agricultural Department of Tamil Nadu as the complainant purchased the Tractor for Agricultural purpose.  The opposite party informed the complainant that the Registration of the Tractor could be done only after the subsidy is given by the Government and insisted the complainant to pay the entire amount of the Tractor and also assured that the subsidy amount would be granted directly to the complainant’s bank account.  But even after fulfilling all the requirements and paying the entire amount the opposite party did not take any steps to get the Tractor registered nor to get the subsidy and hence the complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- as he could not use the Tractor.  The complainant sent a notice dated 29.05.2020 to the Executive Engineer, Agricultural Engineering Department, Thiruvallur and the opposite party for Registration of the Tractor and for the subsidy.  The Assistant Executive Engineer replied to the complainant that in order to get the subsidy the farmer should get himself registered even before purchasing the machineries and instruments.  This fact was suppressed by the opposite party to the complainant.  Thus contending that the opposite party inspite of receiving the money had failed to get the subsidy for the Tractor and also to register the vehicle, alleging deficiency in service the present complaint has been filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.

Defense of  Opposite Party :-

The opposite party denied the allegations made by the complainant stating that the complaint filed without impleading the name of the proprietor is not maintainable and the complaint is silent about the mode of getting the subsidy from the Government P.M. Kissan Subsidy Yojana.  It is submitted that the opposite party as per the procedure had applied for the subsidy amount and the application for subsidy amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been approved by the manufacturer on 19.03.2019 and the Government has to pay the subsidy amount directly to the Bank Account of the complainant. They denied that the price amount of Rs.5,09,500/- is inclusive of the registration charges.  The grant of subsidy amount is pending by the Government and hence the complaint is premature.  It is admitted by them that they informed the complainant that the registration of Tractor could be done only after getting the subsidy from the Government and the subsidy amount to be granted by the Government will be credited to the complainant’s bank account.  They further denied at the time of purchasing the vehicle they promised that they will get the subsidy amount and get the registration done.  Thus the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A6 was filed. On the side of opposite party Ex.B1 and B6 was marked along with proof affidavit.

 Point for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not getting the Tractor registered and in not taking steps for the grant of subsidy amount to the complainant?
2. If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;

1. Quotation dated 28.12.2018 issued by the opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;
2. Receipt for payment issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 19.02.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
3. Delivery Challan issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 08.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
4. Receipt for payment issued by the opposite party to the complainant dated 06.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;
5. Legal notice issued by the complainant with acknowledgement dated 12.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
6. Aadhar card of complainant was marked as Ex.A6;

On the side of the opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

7. Application for getting the subsidy under PM.Kissan Tractor

    subsidy scheme dated 06.12.2018 was marked as Ex.B1;

8. Receipt for payment of Rs.4,19,500/- issued by the opposite party to the complainant was marked as Ex.B2;
9. Single implement application detail was marked as Ex.B3;
10. Receipt for the payment of Rs.10,000/- dated 06.05.2019 was marked as Ex.B4;
11. Delivery challan for Rotavator dated 22.04.2019 was marked as Ex.B5;
12. Letter written by the opposite party to the complainant dated 06.07.2021 was marked as Ex.B6;

 It is represented by both the learned counsels for the complainant and the opposite party that their respective written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and the complaint could be decided on merits.

We perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Captain 250 D1 4WD Tractor bearing Engine No.D119013466, Chassis No.SC21312977 on 08.03.2019 from the opposite party.  It is also admitted that by both the parties that the vehicle till date from the date of purchase and delivery i.e, on 08.03.2019 was not registered for the reason that no subsidy amount has been credited to the complainant’s account. It is stated by the opposite party that the subsidy amount was approved by the Government but the same was not credited to the complainant’s account and that they are not responsible in any way for the same. In Ex.B6 dated 06.07.2021, the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant shows that they are always willing to take steps to register the vehicle in the name of the complainant and it is only the complainant who is not coming forward for registering the vehicle on the pretext that after getting the subsidy he will come for the registration.  This letter was issued by the opposite party only after filing of the complaint by the complainant on 02.03.2021 therefore it is amply proved that  till the date of filing of complaint the opposite party has not come forward to register the vehicle inspite of the request made by the complainant.  It is also only the opposite party who had initiated and carried on the steps for getting the subsidy amount and it is the complainant’s case that he had submitted all the required documents as required by the opposite party.  Further it was also the opposite party’s defence that the subsidy amount has been approved by the Government.  In such circumstances it is for the opposite party to take steps to get the vehicle registered and also to see that the subsidy amount is credited to the complainant’s account.  Our decision is fortified by the fact as already stated that it is the opposite party who had taken all the steps for the grant of subsidy for the complainant.  Hence we are of the view that even after selling the vehicle and receiving the amount inclusive of registration charges, not registering the vehicle for more than three years is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point no.1 in favour of the complainant. 

Point No.2:

As we have held above that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service, the complainant is entitled to certain reliefs.  However, we are of the view that the amount claimed for mental agony, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the complainant is on the higher side and as also no sufficient evidence has been submitted by him in proof of his loss.  In such circumstances we deem it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and loss suffered by the complainant.  Cost of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards the litigation expenses.

In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to register the vehicle within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant.  Time for compliance four weeks. Cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) ordered

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 10^st day of June 2022.

       Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

  List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

      Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT