Delay In Delivery Of Number Plate And Registration Certificate, Kangra District Commission Holds Mahindra Tractors Dealer Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) held Mahindra Tractors dealer liable of deficiency in service for delay in delivery of high security registration plate/number plate and registration certificate to the Complainant. The bench directed it to...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra at Dharamshala (Himachal Pradesh) bench comprising of Hemanshu Mishra (President), Arti Sood and Narayan Thakur (Members) held Mahindra Tractors dealer liable of deficiency in service for delay in delivery of high security registration plate/number plate and registration certificate to the Complainant. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mr Bharat Bhushan (“Complainant”), a farmer, approached Mahindra Financial Services Limited (“Financer”) for the acquisition of vehicle for helping himself in agriculture. After completing requisite formalities, the financer provided financing amounting to Rs. 2,10,588/- to the Complainant. Subsequently, the Complainant approached Mahindra Tractors Anand Automobiles (“Mahindra Tractors”) for the purchase of a Mahindra Tractor, valuing Rs. 7,20,000/-, inclusive of Rs. 5,00,000/- as the true value of the old tractor. Despite assurances from Mahindra Tractors regarding the delivery of all necessary documents within 20 to 25 days of the purchase date, repeated requests by the Complainant failed to elicit the delivery of the registration certificate, number plate, and insurance for the tractor. Only after receiving a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from Mahindra Tractors, the Complainant discovered that the tractor was already registered with Registering Licensing Authority (RLA), Indora and this information was not disclosed by Mahindra Tractors to the Complainant. Further, the Complainant didn't receive any registration certificate from Mahindra Tractors or RLA.
Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kangra, Himachal Pradesh (“District Commission”).
Upon receiving notice, Mahindra Tractors contested the complaint, asserting that the Complainant purchased a new tractor and a fixed fiber hood totaling Rs. 7,38,000/-. Of this, Rs. 5,00,000/- was adjusted for the old tractor sold to it, and an additional Rs. 2,10,588/- was transferred to its account. The remaining outstanding amount of Rs. 27,412/- was not paid by the Complainant despite multiple requests and reminders to him by Mahindra Tractors. It contended that the Complainant owes this outstanding sum and has failed to cooperate in the collection of the tractor's number plates. Therefore, it asserted that the once the Complainant pays the remaining amount, it would deliver the remaining documents.
Conversely, the financer did not appear before the District Commission. The licensing authority, while responding separately, raised preliminary objections concerning the complainant's locus standi, maintainability, and cause of action. It argued that after the Complainant and Mahindra Tractors applied for vehicle registration, approval was granted on the same day. Subsequently, it became the responsibility of Mahindra Tractors, as the vehicle dealer, to apply for a High Security number plate. The absence of the high-security plate during the Complainant's visit to it prevented the acquisition of the registration certificate printout.
Observations by the Commission:
While referring to the evidences presented by the parties, the District Commission noted that the number plate of the tractor was reportedly lying in Mahindra Tractors' office for over a year. Further, the District Commission held that the delay for delivery of the documents and number plates was contributory on the part of both the complainant and Mahindra Tractors. In this regard, the District Commission noted that the Complainant didn't present any communication and messages in the record exchanged between Mahindra Tractors and the Complainant regarding the collection of the number plate.
Consequently, the District Commission held Mahindra Tractors liable of deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint against the financer and RLA. Therefore, the District Commission directed Mahindra Tractors to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant and Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
10,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Case Title: Bharat Bhushan vs Mahindra Tractors Anand Automobiles and Others
Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 498/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: Neha Singh
Advocate for the Respondent: Sanjay Kalia and Sanjeev Kumar