Complaint filed on: 15-02-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 19-02-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.23/2019

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Girish.R

S/o late Rangappa

24 years, Heggadathi halli

Village, Kasaba hobli,

Kunigal taluk, Tumkur district

(By Sri.T.Ramaiah, Advocate)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Manager

Sri Annapurneshwari Motors, Gubbi gate,

Tumkur taluk and district

2. The Branch Manager,

IndusInd bank,

No.87, 3^rd floor,

Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi,

Bengaluru-19

Sub-division,

IndusInd bank, Tumkur branch, Tumkur

(OP No.1 by Sri.T.S.Ravi)

OP No.2 by Sri.S.M.Anees Ahamed)

ORDER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, LADY MEMBER

This complaint is filed against the Opposite party Nos.1 and 2 (hereinafter called as the OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,00,000=00 compensation for deficiency in service and further direct the OPs to get registration of the Powertrac 439 DC vehicle.

          2. The complainant has purchased the powertrac 439DS tractor 39 HP on 21-5-2016 from the 1^st OP.  The 2^nd OP gave the financial help to the complainant to purchase the Powertrac Tractor. The OP No.1 has delivered the powertrac 439DS tractor to the complainant and gave the invoice receipt wherein it is mentioned the model of tractor as PT 439 DS. But the 2^nd OP has mentioned the vehicle description as “Escort’s Powertrac 439 DS plus Alt 4000” which is 2 HP more than the tractor delivered to the complainant. The 2^nd OP in the value slip of vehicle mentioned as “Escort’s Powertrac 439 DS plus Alt 4000” which is more value than the vehicle given to the complainant.

          3. The complainant further submitted that he has filed a case before the Legal Service Authority, Kunigal and the Hon’ble Court given a direction to file the case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The complainant further submitted that already the 2^nd OP has filed Arbitration appeal No.173/2018 against the complainant in City Civil Court, Bengaluru. In that case also the 2^nd OP has mentioned the description of vehicle as “Escort’s Powertrac 439 DC plus Alt 4000 Tractor”.

          4. The complainant further case is that the 1^st OP has given “Escort’s Powertrac 439 DS plus” which is 49 HP to one Lakshmamma for less price than the price of complainant’s tractor which is 39 HP. Hence the complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss. Hence, the complainant approached this Commission/Forum for deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

          5. In response to notice the 1^st OP appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version denying the allegations made in the complaint. The 1^st OP submits that the complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant has not made party one Lakshmamma hence, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The 1^st OP admitted that the complainant has purchased the Powertrac 439 DS Tractor of 39 horse power. It is contended by the 1^st OP that there is no deficiency of service on its part.

          6. The 2^nd OP though appeared through its learned counsel filed neither version nor affidavit evidence in spite of sufficient opportunity. 

          7. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced nine documents. The 1^st OP did not care to file affidavit evidence however produced four documents along with version.

          8. We have heard the oral arguments of complainant in addition to written brief. Based on the above materials the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2?
2. What order?

9. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point No.1: In partly affirmative

          Point No.2: As per final order for below;

REASONS

          10. Point No.1 and 2: On perusal of the pleadings, version, evidence of complainant and documents filed by the complainant and 1^st OP, the facts reveal that on 2-5-2016 the complainant has purchased the powertrac 439 DS tractor and the 1^st OP also admitted this fact. The 1^st OP has given the invoice receipt, form no.21 and temporary certificate of registration. On perusal of copy of the invoice receipt filed by the 1^st OP the total invoice amount is Rs.5,60,000=00. On perusal of the valuation statement of 2^nd OP bank filed by the complainant it clearly shows that the invoice amount is Rs.5,78,457=00. In the bank valuation slip it is mentioned the description of tractor as PT 439 DS blue and white, engine no.E3334802, Chassis no.TO53299794BE.  In the copy of the bank valuation statement it is mentioned under the product details that the product model as Escort’s Powertrac 439 DS plus Alt 4000, Engine no.E3334802 and Chassis no.T053299794BE. In the statement of account of the 2^nd OP under the column of cash details it is mentioned that invoice amount shown as Rs.5,78,457=00.

          11. On perusal of all the documents filed by the complainant and 1^st OP it is clear that  the 2^nd OP has falsely mentioned the description of the tractor in the statement of account more powerful tractor than the tractor which is delivered to the complainant from the 1^st OP. This act of the 2^nd OP amounts to deficiency in service as he has shown excess amount of Rs.18,457=00 against the invoice dated 3-6-2016 issued by the 1^st OP for Rs.5,60,000=00 which is inclusive of Vat amount of Rs.29,194=00.  

          12. The 1^st OP has performed his duty by issuing invoice receipt which is having vehicle description and the same vehicle has handed over to the complainant. Further the 1^st OP has made the temporary registration of the vehicle on 5-7-2016 in the name of complainant which was valid upto 28-7-2016. The 1^st OP has submitted Form no.21 and Form no.22 hence, it is the bounden duty of complainant to get permanent registration of the vehicle. This Commission cannot direct the OP to get permanent registration of the vehicle as it was duty of the complainant to get registration after the expiry of the temporary registration period.  

          13. On perusal of the order sheet the complainant filed the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay. This District Consumer Redressal Commission has condoned the delay at the time of admission of the case hence, there is no question to reconsider the point of limitation.

          14. The complainant produced the account extract of Lakshmamma of Kallanayakana halli, Maduru, Kunigal taluk, Tumakuru which shows the tractor description “PT 439 DS + SM”  41 HP, total amount of Rs.5,50,000=00. The tractor given to Lakshmamma is having 41 HP but the complainant’s tractor is 39 HP even then the amount collected by 1^st OP from Smt.Lakshamamma is less. The presence of Smt.Lakshmamma in this case is not necessary.         

          15. On perusal of the invoice given by the 1^st OP and amount mentioned in the valuation statement of the 2^nd OP  there is difference of Rs.18,457=00 and the tractor description is also different in the valuation statement of the 2^nd OP. It clearly shows the deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd OP. The complainant has suffered inconvenience and mental agony for the act of 2^nd OP. For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed directing the 2^nd OP to pay Rs.18,457=00 to the complainant with interest @ 8% p.a. from 3-6-2016 till the date of payment.

          It is further ordered that the 2^nd OP is liable to pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000=00 and compensation for mental agony and inconvenience a sum of Rs.10,000=00 to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order. Otherwise it carries interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till the date of payment.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.