BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 7th January 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 87/ 2014
Sri Srinivasa Spun Pipes Company, Rep. by its
Proprietor Agarala Jagan Mohan Reddy,
S/o Agarala Eswara Reddy, Hindu, aged about 49 years,
Settipalli Post, Renigunta Mandal, Tirupati. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Auto Motive Manufacturers Pvt. Ld.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager, S.No. 140,
Opp. Seshaiah Gari Palli Chinnamachupalli (V & P),
Chennur, Kadapa YSR District.
2. The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority,
Mangalam, Karakamabadi Road, Tirupati, Chittoor District. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 30-12-2015 in the presence of Sri S. Adinarayana, Advocate for complainant and Sri M. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for O.P.1 and Sri P. Subramanyam, Advocate for O.P.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Smt. K. Sireesha, Lady Member),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the opposite party No. 1 to pay a sum of ₹ 19,00,000/- to the complainant being the amount paid towards installments for getting transportation on rent and also other expenses, apart from suffering mental agony due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay cost of ₹ 10,000/- of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant is running business in Spun Pipes manufacturing and transporting to various places for which they need transport vehicles of their products. The 1st opposite party is manufacturer of heavy vehicle under the name and style of Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., having branch office at Kadapa. The complainant approached HDFC Bank, Tiruapti to purchase two transport vehicles and bank sanctioned loan for purchase of vehicles. The complainant approached 1st opposite party for quotations to submit the same to the bank and after availing the loan from the bank submitted cheques to the 1st opposite party for purchase of vehicles. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party sold Ashok Leyland goods Lorries bearing engine No. DY HZ 405982, Chasis No. MBITRPYB7DRYH5566 for a sum of ₹ 19,83,838/- and ₹ 11,75,000/- towards purchase of triple axle flat bend semi trailer and another vehicle bearing engine No. DY HZ 405596 and chasis No. MB1TRPYB7DRYH5678 with TR Nos. AP 04 UR TR 2090 and AP 04 UBTR 3436 for a sum of ₹ 19,83,838/- towards engine and another sum of ₹ 11,75,000/- towards purchase of triple axle flat bend semi trailer respectively and obtained temporary registration certificate from the 1st opposite party and got delivery of the vehicles on 27-5-2013 and 6-6-2013 respectively. The complainant submitted the vehicles for registration purpose before 2nd opposite party i.e. Regional Transport Authoty, Tirupati at that time 2nd opposite party found in column of the discretion of the vehicle as tractor of commercial use instead of articulated vehicles and also in the class of vehicles column instead of mentioning as it was heavy goods carriage mentioned as TRTT. Hence, RTA authorities returned the application of the complainant for registration of the vehicle and asked the complainant to approach S.T.A. Hyderabad and to rectify the mistake to get it registered at Tiruapti. The complainant approached S.T.A Hyderabad on so many occasion and spent lot of money. The complainant also applied in choice numbers by paying ₹ 5,000/- for his vehicles but in view of the above reasons the registration was delayed.
3. The complainant intimated the above mistake to the 1st opposite party and requeste4d to get it rectified but 1st opposite party did not responded properly and gave evasive answers. After availing the loan the installments for repayment started on very next month. The complainant has been paying the same right from July 2013 and paid for months installments to a sum of ₹ 7,52,000/- to the bank without running his vehicles. Thus the purpose for which he purchases the vehicle was not served. In that period the complainant had to availed the services of rented vehicle by paying heavy rents for transporting to a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- for that amount he has to pay interest to the private parties. Apart from the above loss the complainant paid a sum of ₹ 1,10,000/- for various expenses.
4. At last the complainant got registered the vehicles on the permission given by the S.T.A., Hyderabad on 14-11-2013 as AP 03 TB 7272 for TR No. AP 04 UB TR 2090 and AP 03 TB 6678 for TR No. AP 04 UB TR 3436 from RTA Tirupati and 2nd opposite party i.e. R.T.A. Tirupati issued goods carriage permit and also extension validity of permit by STA, Chennai on 4-12-2013. The complainant demanded the opposite parties to compensate heavy loss incurred by him due to deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party for having wrong description about TR certificates issued by the RTA, Kadapa as there is no response the complainant got issued a notice for which also no response. In view of the deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party the complainant sustained loss of ₹ 7,52,000/- towards installments paid, ₹ 12,85,000/- towards availing rent for transport, another sum of ₹ 1,10,000/- for other expenses. Thus total ₹ 21,47,000/- apart from loss interest and ₹ 3,50,000/- for causing mental agony. Thus in total opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of ₹ 25,00,000/- to the complainant. However, the complainant is restricted his claim for ₹ 19,00,000/-. Hence, the compliant for the above reliefs.
5. No relief is claimed against 2nd opposite party.
6. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed separate counters. 1st opposite party denied the allegations of complaint regarding liability to pay the claim of complainant and deficiency of service on their part and called upon the complainant to prove all the allegations. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable as the vehicles are in question being used in commercial purpose. Therefore, this forum does not rest with the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, since the transaction is purely commercial one. The allegations mentioned in para – 4 of the complaint is that the opposite party is the manufacturer of the vehicles is not correct. This opposite party is only an authorized dealer for the vehicles of Ashok Leyland. The availing loan from HDFC Bank is not within the knowledge of this opposite party.
7. The allegations mentioned regarding purchase of vehicles, issuing of temporary registration certificate delivering the vehicles is undisputed. The vehicles purchased are styled or described as tractor – trailer. The vehicles are similar type was sold in favour of different persons in different places by this opposite party which was registered by the authorities concerned, without any sought of objections or obstructions. The description of the vehicle would be decided by the concerned authority “ARAI”. This description given by the manufacturer basing upon the certification by the manufacturer and also by ARAI department. This opposite party described the class of vehicle as TT means tractor – trailer. As such temporary registration certificate was also issued under the said name and the opposite party does not any authority to describe the class of vehicle at his own choice. This opposite party understands that there was some personal disputes between the complainant and on one hand and with registering authority at Tirupati. Therefore, there was trouble made by the 2nd opposite party in registering the vehicles. However, this opposite party as duty bounded and responsible dealer deputed their own employee to resolve the dispute to the extent possible by this opposite party.
8. It is further averred that the complainant purchased vehicles on 27-5-2013 and 6-6-2013 and he made efforts with 2nd opposite party. In the month of July there was agitation of Samaikya Andhra, so the matter was brushed up in Samaikya Andhra. There are no latches of deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. After sale of vehicle temporary registration certificate was issued to the customers facilitating them to take permanent R.C. within the time provided under law. Noting the class of vehicles in temporary R.C and purchase of bills is based upon the fixation of class of vehicles as referred supra. Thus this opposite party after the class of vehicle was decided by the concerned authority, so also by the said ARAI no way concerned. The opposite party is not concern with the delay if any caused at 2nd opposite party. There is no mistake or errors committed by this opposite party in any way by any means. Therefore, there are no liability for any claim for damages.
9. Reserving fancy numbers is at option of the customers and this opposite party is no way concerned for the same. This opposite party acted according to the rules and regulations and no rectification of mistake as pleaded by the complainant as there was no mistake or error, repayment availing service of other vehicles for rents and paying amounts to private parties etc., are all false and incorrect and denied. As duty bounded dealer this opposite party has bond time again following up the issue even with STA Hyderabad and also with RTA Tirupati and informed the complainant so also to the RTA Tirupati as seen has got confirmation mail from STA Hyderabad. Thus the person claim is unsustainable and liable to be dismissed. The other allegations in the complaint are also denied. This opposite party is not liable for any alleged damages said have been caused to the complainant. The complainant has purchased only U4019 IL tractor only which is being used for commercial purpose and not trailer. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
10. 2nd opposite party filed written version denying the allegations and called the complainant to prove all of them.
11. When there is mistake in the description of the vehicle registered authority will not register the same unless the mistake is rectified. He got reserved his name for getting his choice numbers but failed to get it registered within time as per procedure. This opposite party is being unnecessarily added though no relief is claimed against this party. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 1st opposite party as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim from 1st opposite party?
- To what relief?
13. On behalf of complainant PW1 is examined and Exs. A1 to A21 documents are marked. On behalf of the 1st opposite party RW1 is examined and Exs. B1 to B7 documents are marked.
14. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by the complainant and 1st opposite party.
15. Point Nos. 1 & 2. As seen from evidence on record and documents filed by the complainant and 1st opposite party, it is very clear that the vehicle was purchased for the purpose of commercial use. The complainant is the proprietor of Sri Srinivasa Spun Pipes Company. As seen from Ex. A1 it is very clear that the description of the vehicle is tractor for commercial use. Ex. A4 also clearly shows that the class of vehicle is tractor for commercial use. Ex. A5 also proves the same that the class of vehicle is for commercial use. There are previous transactions between the complainant and opposite parties in purchasing the vehicles. Ex. B1 which is in the name wife of the complainant’s is also same style of vehicle, under Ex. B1 description of the vehicle is mentioned as tractor for commercial use. As observed from the documents and evidence on record filed by the complainant and opposite parties it is very clear that the engine with trailer provision is called as tractor when the trailer attached to the engine, then it is called as articulated vehicle. The complainant had already purchased the vehicle from the opposite party company but there was no problem for those vehicle in registration. Ex. B4 clearly shows that the vehicle is articulated vehicle. The complainant had not filed any proof that he had paid ₹ 7,52,000/- towards finance installments to HDFC Bank without running the vehicle and also there was no proof filed by the complainant to say that the complainant had availed service rented vehicles for heavy rents for transportation to a sum of ₹ 6,00,000/- and there is no proof filed by the complainant to prove that the complainant paid sum of ₹ 1,10,000/- towards various expenses. Ex. B1 clearly shows that the temporary registration certificate VAT / retail invoice and permanent R.C in the name of Agarala Uma, Proprietor, M/s Kanaka Durga Poles, S.No. 828-A/1, Renigunta for the same type of vehicle which is in dispute. Smt. Agarala Uma wife of the complainant had purchased from the same Ashok Leyland Ltd., the complainant filed this complaint for the same type of vehicle which was not registered in time before RTA authorities. All exhibits filed by the complainant does not support by the case of complainant, because the complainant already purchased the same company vehicle from 1st opposite party and there was no problem with registration. So the complainant is not eligible for compensation as prayed by him and at the same time there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of 1st opposite party. So the vehicle purchased by the complainant is clearly for commercial purpose. So it does not come under the purview of this Hon’ble forum.
16. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 7th January 2016
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant:
PW1 A. Jagan Mohan Reddy, dt. 12-8-2015.
For Opposite party :
RW1 R.V. Kalyan Chakravarthi, dt. 8-10-2015.
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 P/c of TR Certificate issued by the RTA, Kadapa for Vehicle TR No. AP 04 UB TR 2090, DT.27-05-2013.
Ex: A2 P/c of TR Certificate issued by the RTA, Kadapa For vehicle TRNO.AP 04 UB
TR 3436 0-06-2013
Ex: A3 P/c of Transport Bill issued by the RNR transport, Renigunta in favor of
Complainant, Dt.30-07-2013.
Ex: A4 P/c of Sale certificate/Retail invoice issued by opposite party in favor of
Complainant, Dt.06-06-2013.
Ex: A5 P/c of Sale certificate/Retail invoice issued by opposite party in favor of
Complainant, Dt.27-05-2013.
Ex: A6 P/c of Tax registration certificate issued by commercial tax Department in favor of complainant, Dt.11-07-2015.
Ex: A7 P/c of Quotation issued by Satrac Engineering, Bangalore Tiple Axle flatbed semi Tailors (No.2) to the complainant, Dt.29-04-213.
Ex: A8 P/c of Goods carrying vehicle package policy paid by the complainant and
Certificate issued by ICIC Lombard General Insurance Co., Dt.06-06-2013.
Ex: A9 P/c of Goods carrying vehicle package policy paid by the complainant and
Certificate issued by ICIC Lombard General Insurance Co., Dt.27-05-2013
Ex: A10 P/c of Certificate returns form No.23 issued by RTA, Tirupati in registration
No. AB 03TB 7272 infavour of complainant. Dt. 13-11-2013.
Ex: A11 P/c of Certificate returns form No.23 issued by RTA, Tirupati in registration
No. AB 03TB 7272 infavour of complainant. Dt. 13-11-2013.
Ex: A12 P/c of Goods carriage permit of AP in registration No.AP 03 TB 6678 and AP 03 TB 7272 issued by RTA Tirupathi infavour of complainant, Dt.14-11-2013.
Ex: A13 P/c of Goods carriage permit of AP in registration No. AP 03 TB 6678 and AP 03 TB 7272 issued by STA Chennai-5 infavour of complainant, Dt.04-12-2013.
Ex: A14 P/c of Goods carriage permit of AP in registration No. AP 03 TB 6678
issued by KSTA Bangalore infavour of complainant, Dt.04-12-2013
Ex: A15 P/c of Goods carriage permit of AP in registration No. AP 03 TB 7272
issued by KSTA Bangalore infavour of complainant, Dt.05-12-2013.
Ex: A16 P/c of Advance reservation Number in AP 03 TV 6678 and AP 03 7272 for
the Amount paid by complainant to RTA, Tirupati, Dt.20-06-2013.
Ex: A17 P/c of O/c legal notice issued by complainant infavour of opposite party,
Dt.13-11-2013.
Ex: A18 P/c of Loan Bank statements filed by the complainant.
Ex. A19 P/c of letter addressed to the RTA Tirupati from Automotive Manufacturers
Pvt. Ltd., dt. 24-7-2013.
Ex. A20 P/c of quotation issued by Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd.,
dt. 30-4-2013.
Ex. A21 Lr. No. 1215/A2/2003 issued by 2nd opposite party (Public information
officer) along with material papers, dt. 2-11-2015.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the 1st opposite party: -
Ex: B1 P/c of temporary R.C. VAT/retail invoice, and permanent R.C. in
the name of Smt. Agarala Uma, Proprietor, M/s Kanaka Durga Poles,
S. No.828.A/1, Renigunta.
Ex: B2 P/c of temporary R.C. and permanent R.C. in the name of
Mr. R. Bharath Kumar, relating to Jagaiahpeta of Krishna District.
Ex: B3 P/c of temporary R.C. and permanent R.C. in the name of
M/s Mahindra Transport, Kadapa represented by Mr. N. Mahendra Reddy.
Ex: B4 P/c of temporary R.C. and permanent R.C. in the name of
M/s Sri Srinivasa Spun Pipes Company, S. No.828.A/1, Renigunta.
Ex: B5 P/c of ARAI Certificate for compliance to the Central Motor
Vehicles Rules.
Ex: B6 P/c of Government of A.P. Transport Department letter no.3952/82/2013,
Dt. 1/7/2013 from RTO Tirupathi to the Transport Commissioner.
Ex: B7 P/c of Memo No.10755/11/2011, Dt. 1-9-2011 by Administrative
Officer, Office of the Transport Commissioner, A.P. Hyderabad.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the 2nd Opposite party NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri A. Adinarayana, Advocate for complainant
- Sri M. Sureshkumar, Advocate for O.P.1.
- Sri P. Subramanyam, Advocate for O.P.2.
B.V.P
