M.Shreesha - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the order in C.C.No.13/2008 on the file of District Forum-II, Tirupati, the complainant preferred this appeal.
(2.) THE brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the opposite party no.1 is the manufacturer of Mahendra Tractors, opp.party no.2 is the financier financing for purchase of Mahendra Tractors under H.P.Agreements and the third opposite party is an authorized dealer of said Tractors. THE complainant submits that under the H.P.Agreement on 9.11.2005 he purchased a Tractor bearing no.Tr.Sl.No.RU CO 1482 with Dowzer for a sum of Rs.6,14,000/- from third opposite party. THE second opposite party financed the complainant a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- out of the sale price of Rs.6,14,000/- and the said amount should be paid by the complainant @ Rs.16,325/- per month within a period of 3 years. THE complainant paid the down payment of Rs.1,64,000/- to the opp.parties. On the date of purchase of the said Tractor and Dowzer, second opposite party obtained 15 empty cheque leaves and also took signatures from the complainant on the empty promissory note and on some empty papers. THE complainant submits that from the date of delivery of the tractor it was giving trouble. THE complainant informed second and third opp.parties about the defects in the tractor and requested them to rectify the defects but they did not rectify the defects. THE complainant spent Rs.50,000/- to rectify the defects in the vehicle to run the tractor in road worthy condition, but in vain. THE complainant paid 7 instalments i.e. Rs.1,14,275/- to the second opposite party. Subsequently the complainant came to know that the said tractor was originally purchased by one Anju Raju , native of Pedda Ellagundla Village, Chowdepalle Mandal, Chittoor Dist. from the show room of third opposite party on 28.5.2005 by paying spot sale consideration amount and he used it for a period of one year and returned it to opp.parties as there was mechanical and a manufacturing defect in it. Opp.parties remodalised the said tractor and in turn sold it to the complainant under hire purchase agreement suppressing that fact that the tractor is a defective and second hand one. THE said Anju Raju has also handed over the original operator's manual book, quotation dt.20.4.2005 etc. to the complainant. THE complainant submits that he gave a complaint before the S.H.O.,Alipiri PS and the police registered a crime against the opp.parties for having cheated the complainant. The complainant submits that if the Tractor and the Dowzer is in good and road worthy condition he would daily earn an income of Rs.4000/-. The complainant submits that on account of supply of vehicle with mechanical defects he kept the tractor and dowzer in idle condition from the next date of purchase which resulted in loss of monthly income of Rs.1,20,000/- for about 13 months. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 17.10.2007 to the opp.parties calling upon them to exchange the tractor with a new show room tractor, to pay loss of income and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The said notice was received by the opp.parties and they gave reply with false and frivolous allegations. Hence the complaint seeking direction to the opp.parties to exchange the second hand tractor RJC 0.1482 with a new Tractor, to pay compensation towards loss of income for a period of 13 months 20 days i.e. from 10.11.2006 total sum of Rs.16,40,000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards repair charges, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation. This Product is Licensed to Mr. Paresh Shah, Advocate, Ahmedabad Opp.party no.1 though received notice remained exparte. Opposite party no.2 filed written version admitting purchase of tractor under H.P.Agreement with this opposite party and denying other allegations made in the complaint. The opposite party submits that their company is a registered company under Companies Act and as per the Certificate of incorporation the person to sue and to be sued is only the Managing Director of the Company. The opp.party no.2 is a separate legal entity. This opp.party financed the complainant Rs.4,50,000/-. The complainant has entered H.P.Agreement agreeing to repay at Rs.16,325/- per month and he paid 8 instalments totaling to Rs.1,30,600/- and thereafter committed default. Opp.party no.2 submits that they are no way connected with the make defects in the vehicle or any other problems as alleged in the complaint and the complainant is bound to pay the instalments having availed loan and this opposite party is at liberty to take steps as per the agreement against the complainant. This opposite party is not a necessary party and the complainant added this opposite party only to evade payments. This opposite party is no way connected with the other parties except provide loan of the tractor manufactured by opp.party no.1 and sold the same through opp.party no.3 .Opp.party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. Opposite party no.3 filed objections denying the allegations made in the complaint and contending that they are not authorized dealers of Mahendra Tractors from 31.3.2007 and that they sold a new brand vehicle to the complainant. Opposite party submits that the complainant at no point of time made any complaint regarding performance of the vehicle till the date of notice.
(3.) THIS opposite party is not a necessary party to the complaint. The complainant failed to adduce any material before the District Forum to show that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle or negligence on the part of opp.party no.3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A8 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint without costs. Written arguments of respondents 1 to 3 filed. Exs.A9 to A11 filed by the appellant/complainant as additional documents before this Commission . Exs.B1 to B3 filed before this Commission by Respondent/opp.party no.3. It is the complainant's case that he purchased Mahindra 605 DI Arjun Tractor Sl.No.RJCO 1482 with Dowzer manufactured by opposite party no.1 company for an amount of Rs.6,14,000/- from opposite party no.3 dealer. Out of this amount opposite party no.2 financed Rs.4,50,000/- and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,64,000/- towards down payment to the dealer. Ex.A1 is the quotation dt.20.4.05 issued by the Dealer in the name of Kaju Anjiraju. It is the complainant's case that he paid 7 instalments amounting to Rs.1,14,275/- to opposite party.2 who took 15 cheque leaves and also the complainant's signatures on the promissory notes and empty papers. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the tractor was originally purchased by one Anju Raju on 28.5.05 by paying spot sale consideration and he used the same for a period of one year and returned the same to opposite parties as there was a manufacturing defect. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the opposite parties remodeled the tractor misrepresenting that it is a new one and therefore the complainant gave a complaint to SHO, Alipiri in crime no.290/07 and because of the mechanical defects the complainant kept the tractor and dowzer idle from 10.11.06 which resulted in loss of income of Rs.4000/- per day i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per month and he also issued a legal notice to opp.parties on 11.10.07 calling upon them to exchange the old tractor with a new one (Ex.A7) for which opposite parties 1 and 3 replied vide Ex.A8 dt.1.11.07 but did not settle the matter. Ex.A2 which is the operator's manual which is in the name of Kaju Anji Raju with the tractor no.SR.no.RJCO 1482, the date of purchase , invoice number, and dealer's name is Vijaya Tractor Agencies, Tirupathi. Ex.A1 is not an invoice but is only a quotation wherein the price of the said tractor with dowzer is stated as Rs.6,25,000/- in the name of Kaju Anji Raju. It is the complainant's case that Kaju Anji Raju has purchased the tractor on 28.5.05 by paying spot sale consideration but Ex.A1 shows the financier's name as Corporation Bank. We observe from the record that the complainant did not file any sale certificate or invoice or cash bill to substantiate his contention that the impugned tractor was originally sold to Kaju Anji Raju. The complainant filed Ex.A9 to A11 as additional documents . Ex.A9 are the copies of receipts issued by dealer in the name of Kaju Anji Raju dt.19.5.2005 and 20.4.2005 for Rs.5,20,000/- and 50,000/- vide cheque no.003313 and 003309 drawn on Corporation Bank respectively which shows that the payment has been made towards 605 D1 Arjun RJCO 1482 Model. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant relied on Ex.A11 which is an internet copy for the tractor Sl.no. RJCO 1482 which;