Non-cooperation of the OP No. 1 and the post purchase registration of the tractor have irked the complainant to lodge this complaint for redressal u/s 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
The summation of the instant case goes that the complainant has purchased a Mahindra Tractor 575 DI Bhoomipurta from the OP the price of Rs.8,38,000/- of which the complainant has paid Rs.7,48,000/-. The complainant with the help of OP No. 1 was financed Rs.4,80,000/- from the OP No. 2, but the OP No. 1 has not cooperated with him to make the vehicle registered as per rule. That has caused a serious harm to livelihood of the complainant and also capacity to repay installment of the financer. The vehicle was purchased on 30.6.2014 but till the date the vehicle has remained unregistered causing a great harm to his livelihood. So, the complainant had prayed for a compensation of Rs.9,40,000/- and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The OP No. 1 in his written version has denied all the allegations of the complainant and claims that as the complainant has not paid the due amount of Rs.1,18,125/-, so he has not taken any initiative for registration of the vehicle. As and when the due amount will be paid he will do needful for registration of the vehicle.
The OP No. 2 in his averment has stated that the instant case is not maintainable under the purview of the CP Act, questioning the definition of ‘consumer’ of the complainant. Moreover, he stated that he is mere a financer for purchase of the tractor and not responsible for making vehicle registered. The complainant has to repay Rs.6,76,800/- in 16 periodical installment of which he has paid only 7 installment and is in default of Rs.2,39,996/- i.e. for 9 installment and also some other charges for late payment etc. So, he is mis-joinder in the instant case.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant has further alleged that due to non-cooperation of the OP No. 1 his client is suffering from earning his livelihood and also has become a defaulter for repayment with the financer OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 has already been paid 90% of the total value of the vehicle in 2014 and if the OP No. 1 cooperated to get the vehicle registered, the complainant would be able to earn his livelihood and repay the dues to all concerned. The complainant’s only livelihood is cultivation for which he purchased the tractor. But, non-cooperation of the OP No. 1 to whom he has requested time and again to get his tractor registered has forced him to spend his days without earning for the last about 4 years.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1 stated to this Forum what he has stated in his written version. He added more that the due amount is to be paid immediately for getting the vehicle registered. The Ld. Lawyer for the OP No. 1 cannot provide satisfactory answer to the question regarding the much discrepancy in money receipt showing Sale Tax and other payables to the Government has not been issued to the purchaser. The money receipt is without number dt. 1.11.2014, though the date of delivery of the vehicle shown in another receipt (kept in record) shows 30.6.2014.
On argument the Ld. Lawyer appearing for the OP No.2 told that a huge amount including the principal amount and interest has already been due and if the dues are not paid in proper time his client will be obliged to take the vehicle away from the customer as per the terms & conditions of the loan.
Points for decision:
- Is the complainant a consumer of OP Nos. 1 & 2?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
From the above discussion it is clear that the complainant is a consumer to both the OP Nos. 1 & 2 as their customer. As the cultivation is the only livelihood of the complainant and only for that purpose the vehicle was purchased, so the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the CP Act, 1986.
It is also crystal clear that the complainant has paid 90% total value of the vehicle to the OP No. 1 within 2014. The OP No. 1 has also failed to provide any such document that will prove that the T.C. permit for the vehicle has been handed over to his purchaser, herein the complainant on full payment of the vehicle. We are also surprised to note it that a vehicle has been sold by an authorized dealer of a reputed company without issuing proper bill. It has raised our suspicion that if the Sales Tax and other taxes dues to the Government though being collected from the customers but have really been credited to the Government Exchequer. As the receipt filed by the complainant seems to be credited with a mala fide intension. It is also surprising to us why the complainant has come to this Forum for adjudication after purchasing the vehicle after 3½ years, after bearing the sufferings of no earning condition for such long a period. It is also observed that the OP No. 2 is not directly responsible for not getting the vehicle registered.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
(a) The OP No. 1 is directed to take all necessary steps for getting the vehicle registered within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the OP No. 1 has to refund the whole amount so far received from the complainant and interest @ 10% accrued thereon w.e.f. 1.7.2014 till the date of this order within 45 days from the date of this order.
(b) The complainant is directed to repay the amount of Rs.1,18,125/- in 3 equal installment within 3 months after getting his vehicle registered by the OP No. 1.
(c) The complainant is directed if the OP No. 1 refund the whole amount with the interest, he will repay the whole dues to the OP No. 2 immediately after receiving the refund from the OP No. 1.
(d) The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order.
The OP No. 2 is really mis-joinder in the instant case.
The case be and the same succeeds on contest.
Let a plain copy of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.
