Back
PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S.N. Aggarwal, President and Amarpreet Sharma, Member
SHAMSHER SINGH - Appellant
Versus
POPULAR AUTOMOBILE ENGINEERING, MORINDA - Respondent
First Appeal No. 1292 of 2005
Decided on : 31-05-2010
Sale Certificate - Tractor Purchase Dispute - Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 Rule 42, Jaswant Raj Soni v. Parkash Mal, IV (2005) CLT 68 (SC)=2005 (4) RCR (Civ.) 228, H.V. Vaaradaraja v. Jatti Motors and Anr., 2005 (2) Con.LT 358
Fact of the Case:
The appellant purchased a tractor and alleged that the respondent failed to provide the necessary sale certificate and documents for registration, leading to loss and damages. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, leading to this appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The appellant had purchased the tractor and received the necessary documents, as evidenced by the signed endorsement on the sale invoice. The court directed the respondent to supply duplicate documents to the appellant.
Issues: Failure to provide sale certificate and registration documents, alleged loss and damages, delay in filing the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellant's signed endorsement on the sale invoice proved receipt of registration documents. Delay in filing the complaint indicated receipt of the documents. The court directed the respondent to supply duplicate documents to the appellant.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted to the extent that the respondent was directed to supply duplicate documents to the appellant.
ORDER
S.N. Aggarwal, President - The appellant had purchased Sonalika Tractor, 60 Horse Power from the respondent on 27.6.2004 for an amount of Rs. 3,65,000. He had taken the loan from the Gramin Shivalik Bank, Kharar on 25.6.2004 for an amount of Rs. 2,75,000 and he made the payment of Rs. 90,000 from his own sources to the respondent by way of bank draft.
2. It was further pleaded that the respondent had not issued any receipt or sale certificate and Form Nos. 21 and 22 to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not get the tractor registered. Delivery of the tractor was taken by the appellant from the respondent on 27.6.2004. Since the tractor could not be got registered for want of these documents, therefore, the tractor is lying parked in the house of the appellant.
3. It was further pleaded that the appellant had also purchased the JVC machine from the respondent for an amount of Rs. 3,25,000 for which also the sale certificate was not issued by the respondent. The appellant reserved his right to file a separate complaint regarding the JVC. The respondent failed to deliver the sale certificate or form Nos. 21 and 22 for want of which the appellant failed to use the tractor and he suffered the loss/damages to the tune of Rs. 4,000 per day. Alleging deficiency on the part of the respondents, the appellant filed a complaint against the respondent in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ropar (in short "District Forum") for recovery of Rs. 2,00,000 as compensation and for direction to the respondent to issue the sale certificate and other relevant papers regarding the said tractor. Compensation, cost and interest were also prayed.
4. The respondent filed written statement by way of affidavit of Satnam Singh, Proprietor. It was admitted that the appellant had purchased a Sonalika Tractor Dl 60 for a sum of Rs. 3,71,000 on 25.6.2004. He was given the rebate of Rs. 6,000. All the documents of the said tractor and receipts were taken by the appellant from the respondent on the same day for which he had given the receipt on the back of the sale invoice. Further pleaded that the appellant had taken the delivery of the tractor on 12.6.2004 and not on 27.6.2004. It was denied if the appellant had purchased any JVC machine from the respondent. The respondent never sold the JVC machines.
5. It was further pleaded that the respondent is ready to give the duplicate documents required for the registration. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
6. Shamsher Singh, appellant filed his affidavit Ex. C-1 and the affidavit of Mohinder Singh Ex. C-2. He also proved documents C-3 to C-12 and the affidavit of Jaswinder Singh Ex. C-13. On the other hand the respondent filed the affidavit of Satnam Singh, proprietor of the appellant Ex. OP-1. The respondents also proved document Exs. O.P. 2 to O.P. 4.
7. Learned District Forum vide impugned order dated 7.9.2005 dismissed the complaint.
8. Hence the appeal.
9. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the respondent had failed to give the sale certificate and form Nos. 21 and 22. As a result the appellant could not use the tractor and the appellant has suffered the loss at the rate of Rs. 4,000 per day. It was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 7.9.2005 be set aside and the appellant be awarded adequate compensation. Reliance were placed on Rule 42 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Jaswant Raj Soni v. Parkash Mal, IV (2005) CLT 68 (SC)=2005 (4) RCR (Civ.) 228 and the judgment of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, reported as H.V. Vaaradaraja v. Jatti Motors and Anr., 2005 (2) Con.LT 358.
10. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
11. Admittedly the appellant had purchased a Sonalika Tractor from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 3, 65,000 and he had taken the delivery of the tractor. However as per the version of the re
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
