HH..PP..SSTTAATTEECCO

ONNSSUUM

MEERRDDIISSPPUUTTEESSRREEDDRREESSSSAALL

CCO

OM

MM

MIISSSSIIO

ONNSSHHIIM

MLLAA..

First Appeal No. : 196/2017

Date of Presentation :14.06.2017

Reserved on :10.10.2023

Date of Order

:21.11.2023

_____

M/s International Tractors Ltd. Village Chak Gujran, P.O.

Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur, Punjab, through its

Authorized

Representative

Mr.

Rajnish

Kumar

Sandal,

Manager (Legal).

…… Appellant/Opposite party No.1.

Versus

1. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Banku Ram, R/o Village Banoh, Post

Office Basaral, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamipur, H.P.

……Respondent No.1/complainant

2. M/s Jai Guru Dev Tractors, Authorized dealers Sonalika

International Tractor, Head Office Manpul Nadaun, District

Hamirpur, H.P. through its Proprietor Prag Vij S/o Om

Narayan Mandyal, R/o Ward No.4, NAC, Nadaun, District

Hamirpur, H.P.

…Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2.

Coram

Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

Hon’ble Mr.R.K. Verma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Appellant

:Mr.Navlesh Verma, Advocate.

For Respondent No.1 : Mr.Yash Pal, Advocate vice Ms.Leena

Guleria, Advocate.

For respondent No.2: Already ex-parte.

1111Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order????

M/s International Tractors Ltd. Versus Vijay Kumar & Anr.

(F.A. No.196/2017)

2

Per Mr. R.K.Verma, Member.

O R D E R

Instant appeal is arising out of the order dated

28.04.2017 passed by Learned District Consumer Commission,

Una camp at Hamirpur, in Consumer Complaint No.10/2015

titled Vijay Kumar Versus M/s International Tractors Ltd. & Anr.

Brief facts of Case:

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had

purchased Sonalika tractor in sum of Rs.6,15,000/- from

opposite party No.2/dealer on 29-10-2012 which was financed

by K.C.C. Bank, Kangoo. Complainant paid the entire amount

partly in cash and partly vide D.D. No. 331750 issued by K.C.C.

Bank, Kango. At the time of delivery of the aforesaid tractor,

opposite party No.2/dealer did not issue retail invoice and

opposite party No.2/dealer also took Rupees 28,000/- from the

complainant for insurance of vehicle in the month of December

2012 and had assured to supply the original documents along

with insurance policy to the complainant within one month.

Complainant approached the opposite parties so many times,

but original documents were not supplied to him. Without

original documents of tractor, the tractor could not be plied on

the road for the purpose which it has been purchased by the

complainant. Such act and conduct of opposite parties amount

to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

M/s International Tractors Ltd. Versus Vijay Kumar & Anr.

(F.A. No.196/2017)

3

3.

Notices of the complaint were duly served upon the

opposite

parties

and

opposite

party

No.1/manufacturer

disputed the claim of the complainant by filing reply, wherein

preliminary objections of maintainability, limitation, cause of

action etc. have been taken. On merits, it has been alleged that

opposite party No.1 deals with its dealers on principle to

principle basis and opposite party No.1/manufacturer does not

hold its liability for the acts, omission and commission done on

the part of dealers. Bills and documents of tractor are sent to

the dealer at the time of dispatch of the tractors. It is the

responsibility of the customer to get the tractor insured at own

cost. Tractor was purchased in the year 2012 and as such

complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in

service on the part of replying opposite party and prayer for

dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.

Opposite party No.2 did not opt to resist and

contest the complaint hence opposite party No.2 has been

proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.05.2015.

5.

Rejoinder reasserting and reaffirming the contents

of complaint and controverting t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document