O R D E R
The complainant has filed instant complaint seeking direction to the opposite party(s) to either get the vehicle registered in the name of the Complainant or to take back the vehicle and refund the amount of Rs.28,24,838/- i.e. paid to the opposite parties and other charges incurred through bank and due to non registration of Escort Dig Max II BS IV Back hoe Loader vehicle/machine and opposite party be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and
1
further be burdened to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Apart from it the complainant has sought any other relief which this commission deems fit and proper.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of this complaint are the Complainant approached the opposite Party No.3 and asked for the quotation of the vehicle/machine Escort Dig Max II BS IV Back hoe Loader and the same was provided to the Complainant on 26.4.2022 for Rs.25,21,849/-. The Complainant had availed loan from the Bank of India Palampur Branch to the tune of Rs.28.80 Lacs . After executing a mortgage deed dated 13.7.2021 and had made the payment to the opposite parties for delivery of Escort Dig Max II BS IV Back hoe Loader. The machine Escort Dig Max II BS IV Back hoe Loader was delivered to the Complainant on 19.7.2021, at the agency of Opposite Party No.3 at Thakurdwara Kangra, so sent by the opposite party No.1 and 2. It is pleaded that the complainant in order to get the vehicle/machine registered presented the papers before MVI Palampur on 18.8.2021, but the Motor vehicle Inspector Palampur rejected the papers of registration on the ground that the said vehicle/machine was not approved to be registered, in the state of H.P. As the model of the machine is B S IV, and the same is not approved to be passed in the state of H.P. and the same was rejected. Per complainant since the opposite parties had the knowledge that the Escort Dig Max II BS IV Back hoe Loader machine so sold is only approved by the central Govt. and has not approved by The State of H.P, alleging deficiency in services and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite party(s), the complainant has filed the present complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party(s) No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel, but as the reply was filed beyond stipulated time period of 4 days, the same was not taken on record legally. Whereas opposite party No.3 did not appear before this commission despite service, hence, proceeded against ex-parte.
4. The Complainant in order to prove her case has filed affidavit Ext.CW-1 in evidence along with documents Annexures C-1 to C-19 and close the evidence.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the case file carefully.
6. Admittedly, the machine was purchased on 15.07.2021 for a sum of Rs.25,21,849/-. The said machine was delivered to the complainant on 19.07.2021 at the agency of opposite party No.3.
2
Temporary No.T0821HR1052AQ was issued on 05.08.2021. The invoice annexure C-4 is of Rs.25,21,849/-.
7. Form 20 application for registration of a motor vehicle is annexure C-5 wherein the class of vehicle is mentioned as earth mover equipment, type of body is Backhoe Loader, type of vehicle is MMV and makers name is Escorts Limited (construction equipment). In this form 20 the month and year of manufacturing is shown as March, 2021. This form 20 is appended with the certificate inspection of motor vehicle and that too signed by officials of Escorts Ltd. Annexure C-6 is form 21 sales certificate issued by the manufacturer/dealer of the vehicle. This duly signed form 21 is in the name of complainant, wherein address permanent and temporary of complainant is specifically mentioned as of Kangra, Himachal Pradesh. Annexure C-7 is the certificate of inspection issued by approved dealer. It is also in the name of the complainant. Provisional registration certificate annexure C-9 is issued by Govt. of Haryana. Annexure C-12 reveals that new vehicle in the name of Deepika Sharma wherein it is mentioned that model of the vehicle is approved. Vide Annexure C-13, the complainant has paid Rs.2,21,127/- to Govt. of Himachal Pradesh for new registration hypothecation addition green tax, motor vehicle tax and service charges fees on 18.08.2021 and thereafter the vehicle was presented along with papers before Motor Vehicle Inspector, Palampur on 18.08.2021 and Motor Vehicle Inspector (MVI) rejected the papers on the ground that said vehicle is not approved to be registered in the State of Himachal Pradesh.
8. During the pendency of the complaint on 24.04.2023, Ld. counsel for opposite parties No.1 & 2 apprised this Commission about the letter dated 02.03.2023 written to complainant alongwith Ld. counsel for complainant. The said letter is on record and today while dictating the order, the said letter is marked as annexure-L. In this letter it is intimated by opposite party No.1 Escorts Kubota Limited earlier Escorts Ltd. that they have got the approval of the machine in question in the month of November, 2022 and were ready to close the said issue by December, 2022. In this letter, it was informed that complainant is to sign necessary documents and deposit fee for registration. E-challan Govt. of H.P also suggests that on 23.11.2022 requisite fees was paid by the authorized representative of opposite party.
9. The opposite parties initiated this process after filing of the present consumer complaint. On 13.09.2022 notice was duly served.
3
On 29.10.2022 opposite parties No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission through counsel. The opposite party failed to file reply within stipulated time period of 45 days, as such, right to file reply was closed by the order of this Commission. The opposite party has got approval of this type of vehicle registration of Himachal Pradesh only in the month of January, 2023. Conciliation was tried during pendency of complaint and one Sh. Devinder Sharma appeared before this Commission on 31.10.2023, but conciliation failed.
10. We observe that on 15.07.2021, the opposite party sold the said machine in question to the complainant in the address given by the complainant, which is of Himachal Pradesh. The loan was also advanced by the Bank of India Palampur Branch and the opposite party knowingly sold this machine that this machine is not approved in Himachal Pradesh which is clearly unfair trade practice. Even the opposite party No. 3 remained silent and delivered the vehicle to complainant at Thakurdwara kangra Himachal.
11. The complainant has purchased this machine for earning her livelihood. She had also taken the loan for purchase of this machine, but due to unfair trade practice, the complainant was forced to pay installments of the said loan, but the machine remained idle. The complainant for registration deposited Rs.2,21,127/- with the RLA Palampur. Even the complainant has paid Rs.22,916/- as premium for obtaining the insurance policy. As such, the complainant has suffered due to unfair trade practice mentally and financially.
12. The complainant was kept in dark by the opposite party No.1 at the time of sale of machine and thereafter slept over the matter for long time. This in our considered opinion is fit case for levying punitive damages upon opposite party No.1. This commission in such circumstances deems fit that heavy punitive damages is required to levied upon opposite party No.1 and such punitive damages be paid to the complainant.
13. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 are liable to pay cost of the machine to the tune of Rs.25,21,849/-, fee paid with RLA Palampur to the tune of Rs.2,21,127/-, insurance premium of Rs.22,916/-. Apart from this, interest paid to the Bank of India Palampur Branch by the complainant for no fault of her to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- is also requires to be paid by the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to the complainant . The complainant on 27.07.2023 has stated that they have paid interest for three years approximately to the extent of
4
Rs.9,00,000/-. The total amount comes to Rs.36,65,892/-. Apart from this, opposite party is also liable to pay interest on this amount.
14. It is embolden duty of this commission to ensure that such types of unfair trade practice are not repeated again, for that the opposite party No. 1 will file an affidavit before this commission explaining the course of future action and steps to be taken by the opposite party No. 1, so that such gross unfair trade practice is not repeated again.
15. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.36,65,892/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Apart from this, opposite parties No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally also directed to pay punitive damages to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/-, besides litigation cost quantified as Rs.20,000/-. Opposite parties No.1, 2 & 3 are jointly & severally also directed to pay a compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Opposite parties are at liberty to take back the machine in question from complainant in "AS IS WHERE IS" condition after compliance of the entire award.
16. Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
17. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
18. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(Hemanshu Mishra)
President
(Narayan Thakur) (Arti Sood)
Member Member
5