| ORDER | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB)
CC No. 16 of 09-01-2012 Decided on : 24-07-2012
Paramjit Singh S/o Sh. Maghar Singh R/o Village Sandoha, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, District Bathinda. .... Complainant Versus Hargobind ACE Tractor Agency, Dabwali Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Owner Magma Fincorp Limited, 2765-B, Opposite Tinkoni above Amway Show Room, G T Road, Bathinda through its Manager ....Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Kapil Bansal, counsel for the complainant For the Opposite parties : Sh. Raman Khattar, counsel for opposite party No. 1 Sh. J S Kohli, counsel for opposite party No. 2.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he was interested to purchase a new tractor and for this, he approached opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 asked him to purchase Tractor ACE D1 550 and agreed to purchase the old tractor and car from the complainant for Rs. 3.00 Lacs and assured to arrange the finance for the payment of remaining amount of the tractor. As per the assurance given by the opposite party No. 1, the complainant made up his mind to exchange his old tractor and car with new one and opposite party No. 1 arranged finance for him through opposite party No. 2. The complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 was agreed to give tractor ACE 550DI to him but it delivered the possession of Tractor ACE DI 450 whereas the opposite party No. 1 received the price of Tractor ACE D1 550. As per terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the complainant is paying installments to opposite party No. 2 well in time. The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties also received sufficient amount from the complainant for the purpose of preparing documents i.e. Registration, Insurance etc., but till date no document has been given to him and in the absence of these documents, he is unable to drive the vehicle in question. The complainant has made repeated requests to the opposite parties to deliver the documents of the vehicle in question, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions of this Forum to the opposite parties to issue necessary documents regarding the ownership of tractor to him and pay compensation and cost. The opposite parties filed their separate written statements. The opposite party No. 1 pleaded that complainant is liable to pay Rs. 45,000/- to it as sale price of the tractor for which he issued post dated cheque No. 1819 dated 31-03-2012 of ICICI Bank, Talwandi Sabo which has been presented by opposite party in its account at SBOP on 7-4-2012 but the said cheque was dishonoured by its banker due to insufficient funds. The opposite party No. 1 denied that it ever agreed to purchase the old tractor and car. The complainant himself sold his tractor and Maruti car to one Angrej Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh and paid Rs. 1,90,000/- in cash to opposite party No. 1 on 9-9-2011. Further the complainant himself got sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- from opposite party No. 2, out of which opposite party No. 2 gave Rs. 1,34,547/- to opposite party No. 1 vide cheque No. 490812 of AXIS Bank Ltd., in the month of September, 2011 and Rs. 35,355/- in the month of March, 2012. In this way, Rs. 1,69,902/- was received by opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2 on behalf of the complainant. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded in its written reply that complainant had approached it seeking the financial assistance for purchasing one Tractor which was provided vide proposal number PG/0040/A/10/000031. The loan agreement was signed between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- is financed by it which is to be repaid alongwith interest and other applicable charges as per terms and conditions of the agreement. The opposite party No. 2 has never asked/taken any consideration for registration/Insurance etc., All the documents are to be executed and delivered to the complainant by opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 2 has further pleaded that the complainant has no grievance and hence, has sought no relief against it. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused. In the case in hand, the allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 has received the price of Tractor ACE D1 550 but delivered a Tractor ACE D1 450. Further his allegation is that the opposite parties have not delivered him the necessary documents regarding ownership of tractor despite receiving sufficient amount for this purpose. On the other hand, the pleadings of the opposite parties is that the complainant himself selected Tractor D1-450 and purchased it at his own sweet will. The total price of the vehicle in question was Rs. 4,21,000/- as per Invoice No. 31. He himself sold his tractor and Maruti Car to one Angrej Singh S/o Mukhtiar Singh and paid Rs. 1,90,000/- in cash to opposite party No. 1 on 9-9-2011. He himself got sum of Rs. 1,85,000/- from opposite party No. 2 out of which opposite party No. 2 gave Rs. 1,34,547/- to opposite party No. 1 in the month of September, 2011 and Rs. 35,355/- in the month of March, 2012 and in this way Rs. 1,69,902/- was received by opposite party No. 1 from opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 1 has pleaded that in the first week of January, 2012, the complainant issued a post-dated cheque dated 31-03-2012 of Rs. 45,000/- and assured that in the month of April, 2012 the cheque will be honoured as he will arrange money till then, but when the cheque was presented by opposite party No. 1 in its account with SBOP on 7-4-2012, it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 has delivered a Tractor ACE D1 450 in place of Tractor ACE D1 550 whereas received the price of Tractor ACE D1 550. A perusal of Hire Purchase Finance Agreement Ex. R-2 and Invoice Ex. R-5 reveals that the price of Tractor model D1-450 is Rs. 4,21,000/-. The complainant has not produced any evidence on file to prove that what is the actual price of Ace Tractor D1-450 which he has purchased. Hence, in the absence of any evidence it cannot be believed that the opposite party No. 1 charged the price of Tractor ACE D1 550 and delivered him Tractor ACE D1 450. A perusal of record placed on file reveals that there is no dispute between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 regarding loan amount. The main allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party No. 1 has not delivered him the ownership documents i.e. Registration Certificate and Insurance despite receiving the amount for this purpose. The opposite party No. 1 in this respect has only mentioned in its written reply that no documents are in its possession but nothing stated regarding payment, if any made by the complainant for this purpose. However, the documents placed on file by the opposite parties Ex. R-12 to Ex. R-14 proves that Ch. No. 001819 dated 31-03-2012 for Rs. 45,000/- issued by complainant in favour of opposite party No. 1 was dishonoured by ICICI Bank due to 'Funds insufficient'. The complainant has not denied the issuance of the said cheque. Thus, issuance of cheque by the complainant in favour of opposite party No. 1 proves that an amount of Rs. 45,000/- is still to be paid to opposite party No. 1 by the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 has not produced any other document on file to prove that complainant is liable to pay any other amount beyond Rs. 45,000/-. Hence, keeping in view the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party No. 1 has not delivered the necessary ownership documents to the complainant due to which he was compelled to knock the door of this Forum as the opposite party No. 1 has not intimated the complainant regarding dishonour of cheque.. However, as discussed above, the issuance of cheque for Rs. 45,000/- proves that this amount is outstanding against him i.e. why he issued the said cheque. There is no dispute between the complainant and opposite party No. 2. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with cost of Rs. 1,000/- against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The complainant is directed to pay Rs. 45,000/- to opposite party No. 1 and sign necessary documents required for registration of the vehicle in question within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to get the vehicle registered in the name of complainant and deliver him registration certificate alongwith Insurance within next 30 days from the date of receipt of payment of Rs. 45,000/- from the complainant. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to the record.
Pronounced in open Forum 24-07-2012 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
(Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
