STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN Date of Institution : 09.09.2021 Date of Final Hearing : 08.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2025 SC/5/A/50/2021 Mahindra & Mahindra Limited Swaraj Division, Phase IV, Industrial Area, S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali) Punjab – 160055 Through its Senior Manager – Legal (Through: Sh. Suresh Gautam, Advocate)

….Appellant VERSUS

1. Sh. Rampal S/o Sh. Dharam Singh R/o Village Mohanwala (Khanpur), Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar (Through: Sh. Avil Kaintura, Advocate)

…. Respondent No. 1

2. Om Tractors Dealer Swaraj Tractors New Bypass Road, Near RTO Office, Bhupatwala, Haridwar Through its Proprietor …. None for Respondent No. 2 Coram:

Ms. Kumkum Rani, President Mr. C.M. Singh, Member

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):

This appeal has been directed against judgment and order dated

23.02.2021 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 74 of 2016 styled as Sh. Rampal Vs. Managing Director/Marketing Department Swaraj Division Tractors, Mahindra & Mahindra and others, wherein and whereby the complaint was allowed.

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are as such that the complainant has filed a consumer complaint bearing No. 74 of 2016 before the District Commission alleging that he had purchased a Swaraj Tractor 978 from the opposite party No. 2 – Om Tractors Dealer Swaraj Tractors and the said tractor could not be registered by the Registering Authority, as the papers of the said tractor given by the opposite party No. 2 were defective. It is further stated that the complainant took a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- from the opposite party No. 3 – Punjab National Bank as well as the complainant has also given Rs. 3,50,000/- in cash on dated 12.03.2011 to the opposite party No. 2 for purchasing the Swaraj Tractors model 978 Engine No. 4H2074/NB000023 Chassis No. W.W.C.B. 75905300079. The complainant has also given Rs. 1,50,000/- in cash for obtaining the registration certificate, insurance and other papers from the opposite party No. 2. The opposite party took the responsibility for procuring all the documents such as registration certificate, insurance and etc. from the concerned Department. The opposite party No. 2 has not provided the same to the complainant inspite of several requests. It came to the knowledge of the complainant that the model of the aforesaid tractor was not got approved from the licensing authority of Uttarakhand and in the absence thereof, the registration process could not be conducted. The complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties and there was deficiency in service and they have committed unfair trade practice, hence the complaint was submitted before the District Commission.

3. The opposite party No. 1 has submitted its written statement alleging that the complaint is time barred because the complaint was submitted after the expiry of 5 years from the date of purchase of the Tractor in question. It is further pleaded in the written statement that the complainant has not applied before the registering authority for the registration of the vehicle and also failed to comply Section 41 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 read alongwith Rule 47 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; that it is the complainant who has failed to get the vehicle registered and that the consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant after a period of 5 years from the date of purchase of Tractor and the same is clearly barred by limitation / time.

4. The opposite party No. 2 has not submitted any written statement and vide order dated 22.07.2016 the opportunity of filing the written statement on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 was closed and an order was passed to proceed the complaint case against the opposite party No. 2 as ex-parte. 5. The opposite party No. 3 – Punjab National Bank has submitted in its written statement alleging that the complaint was submitted against the opposite part