LAKSHMAN vs Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation Ltd

IN this complaint, the Complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,70,890/- with interest thereon from the Opp. Parties i.e., Opp. Party No. 1 the Manufacturer; Opp. Party No. 2 The Karnataka Agro INdustries Corporation Ltd. and Opp. Party No. 3 Dealer of Opp. Party No. 1.

THE Complainant purchased a ''Hindustan Super Tractor of dual types of G-614 Model from Opp. Party No. 1. It is the case of the Complainant that though he had requested for supply of HMT make tractor but the Opp. Parties supplied him Hindustan Super Tractor. THE Complainant made payment of the full value of the tractor in a sum of Rs. 2,45,714.57 Ps. It is evident from Ex. C.l, letter written by Opp. Party No. 3 to Opp. Party No. 1. Opp. Party No. supplied the said tractor to the Complainant on 4.5.1992. It is the case of the Complainant that he found on taking delivery of the said tractor the diesel tank was of a very poor quality. Sub-sequently the said diesel tank came to be replaced. THE complainant further averred that he had sought a single tyre H.M.T. Type Tractor but the Opp. Parties supplied him dual type tractor which was not useful for him. So the said dual type tractor was requested to be converted into a single tyre type tractor, and the Opp. Parties did the same. Nextly in the case of the Complainant that Opp. Parties No. 3 did not send Form F and sale certificate along with the vehicle. So the said tractor was not transferred in his name and was not put to use. Those documents i.e., Form F and Sale Certificate came to be received only on 5.11.1992. So the tractor was lying idle with him from 4.5.1992 to 5.11.1992, due to non-supply of those material documents. Consequently, he sustained heavy loss for having kept the vehicle idle from 4.5.1992 till 5.11.1992. The complainant on the basis of these averments, sought compensations from the Opp. Parties in a sum of Rs. 7,70,890/-, as narrated above.

Opp. Parties Nos. 1 and 2 filed their version and averred that it was on the request of the Complainant himself that Hindustan Super Tractor was supplied to the Complainant. But Opp. Parties Nos. 1 and 2 further averred that the necessary documents were given to the Complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle on 4.5.1992 when it was converted into from dual tyre type tractor into single tyre type tractor, the relevant documents were further corrected and supplied to the Complainant on 29.10.1992 itself and there was no delay in providing the relevant documents to the Complainant. The Opp. Parties 1 and 2, on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed. Opp. Party No. 3 has also filed its version and taken up the same plea as taken by Opp. Parties Nos. 1 and 2 and sought the complaint to the dismissed.

DURING enquiry Complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. C.1 to C.6 marked in evidence. Opp. Parties filed the affidavit of its Chief General Manager, KAIC. Ltd. Hebbal, Bangalore and got Exs. R.1 to R.21 marked in evidence. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

THE grievance of the Complainant that he had sought for supply of H.M.T. make tractor but the Opp. Parties supplied him Hindustan Super Tractor, in our opinion, has no substance, Ex. C 1 is the letter dated 24.3.1992 which shows that supply of Hindustan Tractor model only was sought for from Opp. Parties No. 3. THE Complainant has not placed any material on record to show that he had sought for supply of H.M.T. make tractor. The further grievance of the Complainant is that the rectified documents i.e., Form-F and the Sale Certificate were not supplied by the Opp. Parties at the time of the delivery of the tractor on 4.5.1992 and they were supplied only on 5.11.1992 and so he was forced to keep the tractor idle from 4.5.1992 to 5.11.1992 and sought compensation for the loss of his earnings for this period. The Opp. Parties, as referred above, have averred that they had supplied the relevant documents at the time of delivery of the tractor to the Complainant and subsequently when the dual tyre tractor was converted into a single tyre type tractor the documents came to be rectified and given afresh to the Complainant by the end of October, 1992.

EX. C.4 is the letter written by Opp. Parties 1 and 2 to the Complainant, which is dated 9.7.1992 reads as under: "With reference to the above, we write to inform you that due date for IInd servicing was 28.6.92 but so far you have not brought your tractor. Please bring the tractor early. Further your tractor new parts against damaged i.e., H.S.D. Tank and Air cleaner are received from the firm. So you get it replaced early. Please bring Service Card Book. Thanking you."

THIS would clearly go to show that the tractor was working and the Complainant had even taken the said tractor for first servicing and he was required to go to the Opp. Parties for second servicing on 28.6.92. Ex. R.16 is the Form-F supplied by Opp. Parties No. 3 to the Complainant which is dated 29.4.1992. This would go to show that along with the tractor when it was delivered to the Complainant on 4.5.92 Form-F was furnished to him.

Ex. C.5 is the endorsement dated 8.9.1992 by the Secretary, R.T.A. Bidar. This shows that the grant of permit in respect of the said tractor was revoked. The said letter Ex. C.5 reads as under: "The applicant is hereby informed that permit was granted to him in respect of vehicle mentioned above and he was asked to produce the valid documents within 30 days to take the entry of registration of the vehicle in the permit. The applicant failed to produce the valid documents in time and to obtain the permit. Hence the grant of permit is revoked."

THIS shows that the vehicle was working till 8.9.1992. Ex. C.6 is the letter written by Opp. Parties No. 2 to Opp. parties No. 3 dated 15.10.1992 which reads as under: "In continuation of the letters cited under above reference we regret very much to inform you that we have received only "F" Form without signature under above ref. No. 6. Hence same is returning herewith and arrange to send duly signed with sale certificate for G-614 tractor for the above party without any delay. The tractor is still not yet registered by the R.T.O. Bidar for want of above documents. The copy of letter R.T.O. Bidar is already sent to you vide under above cited reference. Even though one more Xerox copy is enclosed herewith for your kind reference and early needful to send Sale Certificate and "F" Form duly filled and attested correctly. In this connection we write to inform you that the above party has put into very much losses as well as problems since 5 months due to non issue of above documents. Therefore we once again request you to please look into the matter personally and arrange to send (1) Sale Certificate (2) "F" Form immediately."

THIS shows that the necessary documents were not yet received till then by the Complainant. Having regard to this material on record, it is evident that permit granted by the R.T. A. for the vehicle was revoked under Ex. C 5 on 8.9.1992. The necessary rectified documents for seeking the permit and for registration of the vehicle came to be received from opp. Parties No. 3 only after 15.10.1992. According to the complainant he received the said documents only on 5.11.1992. Having regard to these facts , in our opinion, there is deficiency in service committed by opp. Parties No. 3 in not sending the necessary documents on time , thereby the complainant was compelled to keep the vehicle idle from 8.9.1992, on which date the permit came to be revoked to 5.11.1992, for which ,in our opinion, the complainint is entitled to get interest on the price amount of the viechle.

IN the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed in part. Opp. Parties No. 3 M/s. Gujarat Tractor Corporation Ltd., is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 2,45,714.57 P. from 8.9.1992 till 5.11.1992. Opp. Party No. 3 shall also pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- to the Complainant towards costs of this proceeding. Opp. Parties No. 3 shall pay the sums so awarded to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from this date. Complaint allowed in part with costs.