Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/32/2020

Pitambar Biswal - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-M/S. Pradhan Machinery - Opp.Party(s)

B.K.Shroff , S.K. Mishra, D. Shroff & associates

24 Apr 2023

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 32/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

 

1. Pitambar Biswal,

         S/o- Late Prasadi Biswal, R/o- At- Vill. Mahukud, Po- Sarapali

         Via- Rairakhol, Dist- Sambalpur-768118, Odisha.       (Expunged)

1. (a)Pramila Biswal(Wife 65 years)

2. Jeetendriya Biswal(Son 45 years)
3. Jyotirmayee Biswal(daughter 42 years)
4. Jaganath Biswal(Son, 39 years),
5. Basanta Kumar Biswal (Son. 33 years)

            All R/o- At- Vill. Mahukud, Po- Sarapali

Via- Rairakhol, Dist- Sambalpur-768118, Odisha.       ………..Complainants

                                          Versus

1-M/S. Pradhan Machinery,

    At- Jadumanipatna, Po/Ps- Rairakhol

    Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha, 768106

2- The Branch Manager, Union bank of India

     Naktideol Branch, At- Naktideol, Via- Rairakhol

     Dist- Sambalpur, Odisha, 768106.

3-The Regional Manager, Union bank of India   

    Office at- 1^st floor , Balaji MID Town,

    Budharaja, Sambalpur, Odisha -768004.

4-The Chairman, Union Bank of  India

    Office at- Union Bank Bhavan, 239,

    Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point,

     Mumbai, Maharastra, India- 400021

5- Regional Director, Reserve Bank of  India      

    Bhubaneswar, Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Marg,

    P.B. No.16, Bhubaneswar-751001, Odisha, India.    …………Opp.Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri.B.K.Shroff, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.1,4 & 5            :-      Exparte
3. For the O.P. 2 & 3               :-      Sri.B.Meher, Advocate & Associates

 

Date of Filing:28.10.2020,  Date of Hearing :06.03.2023  Date of Judgement : 24.04.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The case of the Complainant is about indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering services by the OPs. The OP No. 2 agreed to sanction loan in favour of the Complainant to obtain a Paddy Thresher from OP No. 1. The price of the Paddy Thresher(Tractor) was Rs. 2,04,000/-. In such eventuality on 19.11.2017 the Complainant paid a marginal amount to Rs. 51,000/- in cash to the OP No. 1 and the Paddy Thresher was delivered to the Complainant from OP No 1 on 19.11.2017. The OP No. 2 sanctioned loan amount Rs. 1,53,000/- to the Complainant and furthermore the said loan amount was transferred in the account of the OP No. 1 by the OP No. 2 through NEFT on dtd. 28.11.2017. From the very day of use of the said Tractor did not function properly. The Complainant could realize a defective Paddy Thresher(Tractor) was sold to him by the OP No. 1. The Complainant rushed to the OP No.1 and appraised the details but after repeated visit & complain the OP No. 1 repaired the article but it was not functioning smoothly. The Complainant approached the OP No. 1 to repair the machine perfectly or replace the machine which was under warranty. The OP No. 1 received the Tractor on 10.12.2017 with an assurance” Incase fail to rectify the problem then the product/machine shall be replaced or refund the amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- to the Complainant”. The Complainant being pretended by the OP No. 1 and avoided to provide his Tractor till date. The Tractor is being retained by the OP No.1 since 10.12.2017. The Complainant acknowledged the facts to the OP No. 2 about the defect of the Tractor and approached to intervene in the matter and give instruction to the OP No. 1, subsequently the OP No. 2 instructed the OP No. 1 to rectify the defect or to replace the Tractor as it was covered under warranty or refund the paid amount within a stipulated time of dt. 25.05.2018. After stipulated time the OP No. 1 neither rectified the defect or replace the Tractor nor refund the deposited amount as per assurance made before the OP No. 2. The Complainant visited the OP No. 2 several times and appraised the details how he was being harassed by the act of the OP No. 1, but the Op No. 2 neither co-operated nor take any initiative to save the right and interest of the Complainant/loanee and remained silent at his end. Subsequently getting no fruitful result from the Op No. 1 & 2 the Complainant was compelled to sent a notice to the OP No. 1 on dtd. 29.06.2018 regarding refund of paid amount

 

worth Rs. 2,04,000/- against the purchased article & the notice was duly served, then also the OP No. 1 did not response. Thereafter all the sincere efforts made by the Complainant but the Op No. 1 neither refunded the paid amount against the Tractor nor he replaced the Tractor and all events are within the exclusive knowledge of the OP No. 2. The OP No. 2 knowingly all the fact, on dtd. 11.12.2019 sent a legal notice regarding repayment of loan amount with interest and warned to initiate legal action against the complainant. The OP No. 2 is the financier, violated the norms of RBI guidelines and despite facilitated assistance/remedy to the Complainant/loanee initiated legal action against the Complainant. The OP No. 3 & 4 are made parties in this case though they are also equally liable as such conduct of OP No. 2 for indulging in unfair trade practice and deficiency in rendering services to the customer, as they are the administrative authority of the OP No. 2. The OP No. 5 is made party to justify the prescribed guideline and duty of the OP No. 2,3 & 4 as their administrative authority towards laonee. The Complainant sustained physical harassment and mental agony, financial loss due to non-cooperation of the OP No. 1 and 2 for deficiency in rendering service, along with unfair trade practice.

 

2. The written version of O.P No. 2 & 3 is that the Complainant had approached the OP No. 2 with an application for finance of the said Tractor. After due formalities the OP No. 2 sanctioned an amount of loan of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the complainant for obtaining Paddy Thresher (Tractor) from the OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 had financed the Tractor to the Complainant and for which the Complainant did not repay the loan amount to the OP No. 2, further outstanding in the loan account as on dtd. 08.01.2021 is Rs. 1,50,251/- which the Complainant is liable to repay, moreover the Complainant has created these imaginary facts to make delay for payment of the loan installment. If any defect developed to the Tractor, the Complainant has responsibility to place the matter before OP No. 1 along with the manufacturer of the Tractor but instead of making OP No. 1 and the manufacturer as parties, he has made the other OP parties unnecessarily as the bank has no role to repair the machine or to refund the prices of the Tractor.  The Complainant instead of repairing his Tractor or taking step for replacement of the same through OP No. 1 and the manufacturer of the Tractor, he dragged the answering OPs to make delay for repayment of Installment. The answering OPs are only concerned with recovery of the loan amount when they have sanctioned the loan and paid to the Complainant. The OP No. 2 financer and following due procedure and guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), sanctioned loan in favour of the Complainant and truly speaking that the OP No. 2 has not violated any norms of RBI guideline. Bank has no role to repair any defective Tractor even if the said Tractor is financed by them. So, there is no question of unfair trade practice, deficiency of services by the OP No. 2 & 3.The Complainant is liable to pay damages for filing a false case against the OP No. 2 & 3 and the case against the answering OP No. 2 & 3 is liable to be dismissed.

The other OPs are set exparte.

 

3. From the facts and evidences it is found that the Tractor sold by the OP No. 1 to the Complainant is a defective one. It is the duty of the Product seller and Manufacturer not to sale defective product to anyone. If sold then it is their duty to repair or replace the product or refund the cost of the product. In this case the Manufacturer is a necessary party. However, it is the duty of the Product seller to intimate the matter to the manufacturer and solve the matter. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1. In the other hand Bank has no role to repair any defective Tractor even if the said Tractor is financed by them. So other OPs have no deficiency in service.

Accordingly the case is ordered.

 

ORDER

The O.P No. 1 is directed to refund back all the amount paid by the Complainant and towards installments i.e. payment of loan amount to the OP No. 2 with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case to the Complainant along with repay the other dues i. e installment to the OP No. 2 and thereafter return back the Tractor from the Complainant, if not. Further the OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant in terms of mental harassment, financial loss as compensation and Rs. 15,000/- towards cost of the petition to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 24^th day of April, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.