AJAY ENTERPRISES vs RAVINDRA BHAIDAS PATIL

THE present appeal is filed by original opponent against the judgment and order dated 9. 4. 2003 in complaint case No. 39/2001 passed by District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon.

RESPONDENT/complainant''s case before the Forum is that, he had purchased the tractor manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. from appellant. It is contended that, appellant had agreed to do registration, insurance, etc. of said tractor for which respondent/complainant was said to have paid the amount of Rs. 5,500 on 24. 6. 1999. It is contended that, in spite of payment appellant failed to do registration, insurance, etc. and thus, appellant could not use the tractor in question. Thus, he approached the Forum for compensation. Present appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that, appellant had not agreed to do registration, passing and insurance of the tractor which was bid to the respondent. It is contended that, registration, passing and insurance, etc. of the tractor are by law required to be done by the respondent. Appellant has no concern with the registration of the tractor. It is further contended that respondent had paid amount of Rs. 3,24,150 towards the cost of the tractor. He was required to pay additional amount of Rs. 33,390 towards other equipment such as cultivator, etc. It is contended that respondent had failed to pay aforesaid amount and to avoid the said payment he filed complaint.

The Forum below after hearing the parties held that, appellant failed to do registration, passing, etc. and, thus, respondent could not use the vehicle for the period from 22. 5. 1999 to 28. 1. 2000 thus Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs. 80,000 towards compensation and Rs. 3,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,500 towards cost. Forum also directed to pay interest @ 9% p. a. on the amount of Rs. 80,000 from the date of complaint.

BEING aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Forum, Jalgaon, original opponent came in appeal. Notices were issued to the appellant as well as respondent, Adv. Mr. Upadhye appeared on behalf of appellant whereas Adv. Mr. R. V. Nikam appeared on behalf of respondent. We heard both the Counsel at sufficient length. Learned Counsel Mr. Upadhye submitted that, registration, passing, etc. of the tractor are required to be done by the complainant as appellant has no concern with registration, etc. Learned Counsel further submitted that, complainant had paid Rs. 3,24,150. He had received the possession of tractor with cultivator and plough. The price of the tractor is Rs. 3,24,150 and price of cultivator and plough is to the tune of Rs. 33,390. He submitted that, the price of tractor Rs. 3,24,150 was given to the appellant. Amount of price of cultivator and plough was not paid. He further submitted that, there is absolutely no evidence to show that, respondent had paid amount of Rs. 5,500 to the appellant for registration, passing, etc. According to him, there is no deficiency on the part of appellant.

LEARNED Counsel Mr. Nikam submitted that, evidence adduced before the Forum goes to show that appellant had paid the amount of Rs. 5,500 towards registration, passing, etc. in addition to the price of tractor. He submitted that no action was taken by the appellant for recovery of alleged amount for purchase of cultivator and plough. He fully supported the judgment and order of the Forum. We perused the papers and gave our anxious thoughts to the arguments advanced by both the Counsel. There is no dispute that respondent had purchased the tractor from present appellant who is dealer of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra. There is also no dispute the respondent had paid amount of Rs. 3,24,150 to the present appellant towards the price of tractor. He had raised the loan from Patsanstha. There is also no dispute that the quotation was given by present appellant to the respondent. Quotation in question mentions that price of tractor is Rs. 3,24,150, price of cultivator Rs. 11,700 and price of plough is Rs. 21,690. The quotation mentions total price of tractor with cultivator and plough is Rs. 3,57,540. It is also apparent that the invoice dated 22. 5. 1999 mentions price of tractor as well as price of cultivator and plough. There appears signature of respondent who had accepted the bill in question. There is also no dispute that respondent had received the possession of tractor along with plough and cultivator. The delivery challan is dated 22. 5. 1999 it bear signature of complainant as well as appellant. It is the contention of respondent that he had paid amount of Rs. 3,24,150 by demand draft along with amount of Rs. 5,500 for the registration, passing and insurance, etc. The draft is dated 24. 6. 1999. On the very day amount of Rs. 5,500 was alleged to have been paid for registration, passing and insurance, etc. Respondent adduced no evidence to show that he had paid amount of Rs. 5,500 towards insurance, passing, etc. Admittedly no receipt is passed by the appellant for the amount in question. It was incumbent on the respondent to prove that he had paid the said amount on 24. 6. 1999. Further, it also appears that vehicle in question was insured on 22. 5. 1999. The insurance premium was to the tune of Rs. 4,248. The insurance was for the period from 22. 5. 1999 to 21. 5. 2000. It is to be noted that as per contention of respondent amount of Rs. 5,500 was paid on 24. 6. 1999 for registration, passing and insurance, etc. Admittedly, there is no receipt for the amount alleged to be paid for insurance on very day i. e. 24. 6. 1999. The vehicle was insured on 22. 5. 1999 i. e. prior to the payment of amount in question as per contention of respondent. If the amount of Rs. 5,500 was paid towards registration, passing and insurance, even after deducting amount of insurance only amount Rs. 752 remains with the appellant which is not sufficient for registration. We have mentioned that, insurance is taken on 22. 5. 1999 when amount of Rs. 5,500 was not paid to the appellant. Appellant has filed the affidavit of Mr. Atul Limbaji Patil and also Mr. Vinod Mathuradas Bharote to show that, no such amount was paid by the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellant also brought to our notice that, quotation was given to the respondent, the conditions are mentioned on the reverse side of the quotation. It reveals that, respondent was made aware that the registration, passing and insurance of the tractor is to be done by respondent only. Such condition No. 10 appeared on quotation itself which has been signed by respondent as well as appellant. There is absolutely no evidence to show that, appellant had agreed to do registration, passing and insurance, etc. of the tractor which was sold to the respondent. There is absolutely no evidence to show that, respondent had paid amount of Rs. 5,500 towards insurance, registration, etc. The Forum below did not consider all these aspects and erred in holding that, appellant had agreed to do registration, passing and insurance, etc. of the tractor. We do not find any deficiency on the part of appellant when there was no such agreement for registration passing and insurance, etc. , and when no amount for registration was paid by the respondent. It also be mentioned that, complainant is not at dispute that he had received the tractor along with plough and cultivator. Invoice brought on record mentions price of plough and cultivator to the tune of Rs. 33,390. It is the contention of appellant that in order to avoid the payment complainant had filed the complaint. Respondent adduced no evidence to show that, amount of Rs. 33,390 was paid and no amount was due. In the circumstances we are inclined to allow the appeal. We pass the following order. ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed. 2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. Complaint stands dismissed. 4. No order as to cost. 5. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.

Appeal allowed.