District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.695/2022.
Date of Institution:26.12.2022.
Date of Order: 06.02.2024.
Kaushal Chaudhary aged about 19 years son of Shri Nafe Singh, R/o Village Badarpur Said, Tehsil and District Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
1. M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Tractors (Authorized Dealer of M/s. Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd.) Sehrawt Bhawan, Near Bansal Nursing Home, Mathura Road, Palwal – 121102, Haryana through its proprietor/authorized signatory.
2. M/s. Same Deutz Fahr India Pvt. Ltd. NO. 72M. SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Ranipet Bellore, Tamilnadu – 632403 through its Director/Principal Officer.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Jitender Singh, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Naveen Garg , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Arpan Chaprana, counsel for opposite party No.2.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that on 04.03.2022, the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 to purchase Deutz Fahr Tractor and the complainant’s father booked the said tractor with the opposite party No.1 on 04.03.2022 and paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No. 116 dated 04.03.2022. At that time, the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that he would deliver the said booked tractor to the complainant within 15days. Opposite party No.1 failed to deliver the said tractor within the stipulated period and the complainant visited the opposite party as he was in acute need of tractor for plowing the field for Kharif Fasal and at last on 22.03.2022 the complainant again visited the opposite party No.1 but were such tractor was not available, but the opposite party No.1 allured the complainant that the said tractor was on the way and reached at the showroom within few hours and told the complainant to complete the formalities of the payment and paper etc. Hence, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- from his account NO. 7405000100042908 in the bank account of the opposite party No.1 and on receipt of payment, the opposite party No.1 stated making lame excuses, that the vehicle on which the said tractor was loaded became mechanical defected nearby Agra and the said tractor would be reached next day and hence, the complainant had no option except to accept his such assurance, on next day, the complainant again visited the opposite party No.1 but said tractor was not in his possession. Due to such illegal act of the opposite parties, the complainant had to plow his field by hiring other tractor and he had paid fare Rs.40,000/-.. After great persuasion and regular visits, the opposite party No.1 gave delivery of said booked tractor on 25.04.2022 bearing engine NO. 3A238479D22, chassis No. M1TDK12RDDH003101, HSN Code-8701 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice NO. 037 dated 25.4.2022 for Rs.9,00,953/- (including insurance, registration of vehicle). On which the complainant demanded his excess amount back and above said loss. (copies of invoice with bank statement Annexure C-2(colly). Out of said loss of Rs.40,000/-, the opposite party No.1 refund a sum of Rs.15,000/- on 26.4.2022 (copy of bank statement Annexure C-3). On the next day late-night the complainant received insurance policy of said tractor through whats-app sent by the opposite party but hardcopy of the same had not been supplied to know the genuineness and authenticity of said insurance policy. The complainant sent legal notice dated 16.09.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay a sum of Rs.78,047/- (Rs.25,000/- loss caused Rs.49,047/-_ excess amount and Rs.4000/- as paid by the complainant as service charge to the engineer of other agency).
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.35,000/- as legal expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on 04.03.2022, a person namely Mr. Nafe Singh son of Sarvar Singh approached the opposite party No.1 for purchasing a tractor of model Agrolux 50 2WD and opposite party No.1 received cash payment of Rs.50,000/- as booking amount vide receipt No. 116 dated 04.03.2022 from the said person and it was the one & only booking of tractor on that day. The complainant was not associated with that person namely Mr. Nafe Singh at the time of the said transaction, hence the assurance of any type to the complainant did not arises at all. Subsequent to the booking received from the said person, the opposite party No.1 bought a tractor of said model form opposite party No.2 but upon intimation for taking delivery of said tractor, the said person Mr. Nafe Singh refused to take delivery of said tractor by saying that he did not want to purchase this model as his mind had been changed now. Thereafter in the first week of April 2022 that person namely Mr. Nafe Singh against visited the opposite party No.1 and requested that now he wanted to purchase tractor model Agrolux 50 4 WD. After that opposite party No.1 again bought a another tractor of above said model as demanded by the above said person namely Mr. Nafe Singh from opposite party No.2. On date 08.04.2022, the said Mr. Nafe Singh was again intimated for taking delivery of above said tractor but he delayed the delivery of this tractor by saying that one of his elder family member was on pilgrimage and he could not take delivery of his tractor in absences of said elder family member and instructed them to give delivery of said tractor in presence of the said elder and respectable members of his family, in the last week of April 2022. On 25.04.2022 said person Mr. Nafe Singh alongwith complainant & other 4-5 persons came to the opposite party No.1 for taking delivery of said tractor and only then the opposite party No.1 came to know that the complainant was the real son of said person Mr. Nafe Singh and prior to that opposite party No.1 had not ever met with the complainant. On request of original buyer Mr. Nafe Singh, the opposite party No.1 issued the invoice in the name of the complainant being his real son which was invoice No. 37 dated 25.04.2022 even the entire payment of sale price was made by the said person Mr. Nafe Singh i.e. original buyer. It was further submitted that the opposite party No.1 had applied for registration and got issued the insurance policy of the said tractor from the amount received from the account of Mr. Nafe Singh i.e. original buyer and also affixed accessories for which the separate bill was raised and after setting the account of Mr. Nafe Singh, an amount of Rs.15,000/- had been returned on 26.04.2022 in the same account from which the said payment was received and nothing was pending against the opposite party No.1 Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
2. Opposite party No. 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that there was privity of contract between the opposite party No.2 and the complainant, no liability could be inflicted upon the opposite party No.2. The above was duly proved form the following allegation in complaint and its documents:-
A. Alleged documents filed by the complainant with the complaint:
i. Annexure C1 to the complaint: Payment receipt of Rs.50,000/- dated 04.03.2022. This receipt had been issued by the opposite party No.1 under its own name.
ii. Annexure C2 colly to the complainant: Invoice dated 25.04.2022 with bank statement. Invoice has been issued by the opposite party No.1 under its own name. Bank statement reflects a debit entry dated 22.3.2022 of Rs.9,00,000/- in favour of opposite party No.1 alone.
iii. Annexure C3 to the complaint: Bank statement reflects a credit entry dated 26.04.2022 of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the complainant from the opposite party No.1 alone.
iv. Annexure C4 to the complaint: Legal notice dated 16.09.2022 issued by the complainant’s lawyer. The said legal notice has been issued and addressed only to opposite party No.1 All allegations in the said notice were against opposite party No.1.
B. Allegations made by the complainant in the complaint:
i. para 3 of the complaint:- All alleged representations to complainant had been made by opposite party No.1 alone. Payment to opposite party No.1 alone.
ii. Para 4 of the complaint: the alleged failure to deliver alluring of complainant, excuses have been made by opposite party No.1 alone. Payment to opposite party No.1 alone.
iii. Para 5 of the complainant: Alleged delivery of tractor by opposite party No.1 alone. Demand to refund excess made to opposite party No.1 alone.
iv. Para 6 of the complaint: Alleged refund of Rs.15,000/- made by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.
v. para 7 of the complaint: Alleged representations to complainant made by opposite party No.1 alone.
vi. Para 8 & 9 of the complaint: Alleged breaches and obligations against opposite party No.1 alone (also reflected from the complainant’s legal notice dated 16.09.2022/Annexure C4)
vii. Para 11 of the complaint: Complainant had held only the opposite party No.1 liable to pay him an amount of Rs.78,047/- alongwith Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment etc.
The transaction alleged by the complainant were willfully entered with the opposite party No.. No prior approval was taken from the opposite party No.2. The complainant had filed two cash receiptas. The first cash receipt was dated 04.03.2022 for an amount of Rs.50,000/- wherein the amounts were paid by one Sh. Nafe Singh. The second cash receipt was in the form of Tax invoice dated 25.04.2022 for an amount of Rs.9,00,953.64 wherein the amounts were paid by Sh. Kushal Chaudhary i.e the complainant. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Siddhi Vinayak Tractor and Anr.with the prayer to: a) pay a sum of Rs.78,047/- (Rs.25,000/- loss caused Rs.49,047/-_ excess amount and Rs.4000/- as paid by the complainant as service charge to the engineer of other agency). b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs.35,000/- as legal expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Kushal Chaudhary . Ex. C-1 – receipt, Ex.C-2 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-3 – pass book, Ex.C-4 – legal notice,, Ex.C-5 – postal receipt.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Captan Singh S/o Sh. Bhule Ram, resident of Village Siha, District Palwal, Haryana, Ex.r-1 – photocopy of RC, Ex.R-2 – insurance policy, Ex.R-3 – Tax invoice.
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 Ex.RW2/A – affidavit of Narendra Kumar, Senior Manager- After Sales of the Appellants M/s. Same Deutz-Fahr India(P) Limited having its registered office at Plot No.72/74-M, Sipcot Industrial estate, Ranipet – 632 403, Tamil Nadu, Ex.RW2/1 – Resolution.
7. In this case, the main issue was the dealer of the tractor charged Model No. Agrolex 55 2WD Tractor as per quotation dated 21.03.2022. The counsel for the complainant argued at length and also submitted the quotation dated 04.03.2022 and also argued at length that Ex.R1 which is the RC of the tractor. As per Ex. R1 Model No. of tractor is Agrolex50 2WD and also argued at length for the invoice of the tractor is Rs. 9,00,953/- and as per quotation dated 21.03.2022 opposite party have given the model No.Agrolex55 2WD and charged Rs.9,50,000/-.
8. Keeping in view of the above submissions as well as the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the invoice of the tractor is Rs.9,00,953/- vide Ex.C2 and the complainant paid Rs. 9,50,000/- to the opposite party No.1. Hence the complaint is allowed the excess amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party No.1of Rs.49,049/-.
9. Opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.49,049/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment alongwith Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 06.02.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
