BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 237 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.19/2018 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, MEDAK AT SANGA REDDY Between:

The Laxmi Sai Tractors & Implements, D.No.1-10-81/4, Near Welcome Board, Autonagar, Medak Town and District.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

Manne Venkatesham, S/o Manne Ram Lingam, Aged about 53 years, Occ.: Agricultural, R/o H.No.1-8, Chandur Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District.

……..Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opposite Party : M/s. R.Venkata Krishna Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Sri V. Gouri Sankara Rao QUORUM :

HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, I/c PRESIDENT &

HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – (JUDICIAL)

FRIDAY, THE 10^th DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE **********

Order : (PER HON’BLE SRI. V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER – JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act, by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order, dated 26.03.2019 in CC No.19/2018 by the District Consumer Commission, Medak at Sanga Reddy, where under, the opposite party was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards financial loss sustained by the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.3,000/-

within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which Rs.1,00,000/- would carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant purchased JD 5055 TSS Tractor with Standard Combined Harvestor for Rs.17,00,000/- on 11.11.2014; that out of which taken loan for Rs.10,00,000/- and paid Rs.7,00,000/- from his pocket; that the opposite party issued tax invoice mentioning the Chassis No. as SCTSC 153J1410354 and on the same number, temporary registration was obtained on 11.11.2014 and permanent registration was also obtained on 29.12.2015; that in January 2017, when the complainant went to e-seva services to pay the pending tax for the 02 years, came to know that his name was not figured out for the vehicle in question; that the complainant approached the opposite party and on verification was informed that the correct Chassis No. was SCTSC 513 J14 103 54; that the complainant requested the opposite party for rectification of Chassis number, but there was no response; that the complainant stopped plying the vehicle with an apprehension that the police may seize the vehicle at any time and due to the same sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/-; that the opposite party is liable to indemnify the loss due to deficiency of service to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental agony and trauma; that got issued a legal notice, dated 20.06.2017, but there was no response; hence, the complaint.

3. The brief averments of the counter of opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that due to bonafide mistake chassis number was mistakenly mentioned as 153 J14 10354; that the RTA even agreed to correct the chassis number subject to production of vehicle for verification and though it was informed to the complainant to produce the vehicle for verification, he failed to do so, that with all false and frivolous contentions, the complainant approached the Commission to make a wrongful gain; that the complainant has paid Rs.445/- nominal tax and shall prove that he stopped plying the vehicle, thereby, sustained loss; that never police personnel seized the vehicle and harassed the complainant; that the complainant already sold away the vehicle in favour of one Sri Srinivas Reddy Chowdari, S/o Sri Krishna Reddy as such, there is no question of sustaining any loss; that the complainant had not issued legal notice as alleged; that there is no cause of action to the complaint. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4. Before the Commission below, complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to A18. Mr.Pashem Rajesh Yadav, Manager of opposite party filed evidence affidavit as