Haryana

Karnal

CC/220/2021

Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Haryana Motors (Farmtrac Tractors) - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar

16 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.220 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt 13.04.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 16.12.2024

 

Mahinder Singh son of Shri Zile Singh resident of Ramgarh Dera, VPO Amupur District Karnal, age 45 years, aadhar no.3832 3282 0053.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. M/s Haryana Motors (Farmtrac Tractors) through its proprietor/partner Preet Towar, near Namastey Chowk Old G.T. Road, Karnal.
2. M/s Farmtrac Tractors Division Old Faridabad, Sector-13 Faridabad, Haryana-121006.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Rajesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Rajbir Singh, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.

                   

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased a Tractor (Escorts Ltd.) Champion F4 (Brand Farmtrac) for self employment from OP no.1 on 19.03.2020 which was financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. At the time of purchasing OP no.1 said that the vehicle is manufacture in the year 2020 and its model is 2020. OP no.1 received amount of registration certificate and did not issue any documents. After receiving the registration certificate on 30.07.2020, complainant surprised to see that in the said registration certificate the year of manufacture is mentioned as 10/2019. Thereafter, complainant contacted the OPs and OPs assured that they will change the said vehicle with vehicle of manufacturing year 2020 but till today the said vehicle has not been changed. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 16.12.2020 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to replace the vehicle in question with new model and also pay registration charges, insurance charges etc., to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs.31000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant purchased the tractor from OP no.1 on 19.03.2020, which was financed from Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.  At the time of purchase of the said vehicle each and everything was specifically told to him and the complainant after being satisfied that the manufacturing of the tractor is of 10/2019 he agreed to purchase the same. However, he was given rebate of Rs.50,000/- but now he by cooking up false story and to extract money from the OP has filed this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the said tractor was admittedly purchased on 19.03.2020. OP is a separate legal entity and is working on principal to principal basis with its dealer. As per Dealership Agreement, OP no.2 manufactures the tractors and sales it to its authorized dealer. The dealer further sells the tractor to the prospective buyers wherein all work pertaining to Registration, Local Taxes are to be dealt independently by the Dealer with the Prospective Buyer without any involvement of the manufacturer. Anything on the part of the alleged allegations against the OP no.1, OP no.2 is not liable for the same being separate legal entity. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card of complainant Ex.C1, copy of registration certificate Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of legal notice dated 16.12.2020 and closed the evidence on 18.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Paramjeet Singh Ex.OPW1/A, copy of invoice dated 16.03.2020 Ex.OP1/A, copy of invoice dated 02.11.2019 Ex.OP1/B, copy of RC Ex.OP1/C, copy of advertisement Ex.OP1/D, photograph at the time of delivery of tractor Ex.OP1/E and closed the evidence on 10.06.2024 by suffering separate statement.    

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Shamsher Singh, Manager Legal Ex.OPW2/A, authority letter Ex.OP2/A, copy of agreement Ex.OP2/B, tax invoice Ex.OP2/C, copy of insurance policy Ex.OP2/D, copy of RC Ex.OP2/E and closed the evidence on 10.06.2024 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 19.03.2020, complainant purchased a tractor from OP no.1. At the time of its purchase, OP no.1 told that the vehicle is manufactured in the year 2020. But when complainant received the registration certificate, it was shocked to see that the year of manufacture is 2019. Complainant contacted the OPs and OPs assured that they will change the said vehicle with vehicle of manufacturing year 2020 but till today the said vehicle has not been changed. Due to this act and conduct of OPs complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased a tractor from OP no.1 on 19.03.2020. At the time of its purchase, each and everything was told to complainant and after being satisfied the manufacturing of the tractor is of 10/2019, he agreed to purchase the same. A rebate of Rs.50,000/- was also given to the complainant but now complainant has made a false and concocted story to grab the money from the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP is a separate legal entity and is working on principal to principal basis with its dealer. OP no.2 manufactures the tractors and sales it to its authorized dealer. The dealer further sells the tractor to the prospective buyers wherein all work pertaining to Registration, Local Taxes are to be dealt independently by the Dealer with the Prospective Buyer without any involvement of the manufacturer. There is no allegations against the OP no.2 and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.2.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Complainant has alleged that on 19.03.2020, complainant purchased a tractor from OP no.1. At the time of purchase, OP no.1 said that the vehicle is manufactured in the year 2020 and its model is 2020. But manufacturing year of the vehicle was 2019. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, OP no.1 has alleged that at the time of sale, OP clearly told to complainant with regard to manufacturing of the tractor is of 10/2019 and after knowing the said fact, complainant purchased the said tractor and  rebate of Rs.50,000/- was also given to the complainant. It was the duty of the complainant to check the model of the tractor at the time of its purchase. OPs have given the rebate of Rs.50,000/- and it appears that complainant has purchased 2019 model, just to take the benefit of the rebate thus, the present complaint is nothing and just to harass and extort the money from the OPs.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:16.12.2024    

                                                                 

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                            Member