Sri Rama Chandra Mallick,
S/o: Yudhistira Mallick,
At/PO:Orali, Dist:Bhadrak
……………………..Complainant
(Vrs.)
1. Sri Ananda Didwania,
Prop: M/s. Sri Gobind Tractor
Authorised Dealer of Swaraj Tractors,
At/PO: Charampa,
PS/Dist:Bhadrak
2. The Branch Manager,
Bank of Baroda, Adalapanka Branch,
At/PO: Bonth, Dist:Bhadrak
3. The District Agriculture Officer, Ghashipura,
At/PO/PS: Ghashipura, Dist:Keonjhar
……………………..Opp.Parties
Order No.22 dt.07.09.2015:
This case has been filed by the Complainant alleging deficiency in service against the O.Ps.
The case of the Complainant is that in order to earn his livelihood, he approached the O.P.No.3 to provide agricultural loan to purchase a tractor and to avail the privilege and facility of Government in participating green revolution. Accordingly, the Complainant approached O.P.No.1 who assured to provide Swaraj 735/XM Tractor with 39 HP, trolley tipping type with HD Jack, tiller and bumper, cage wheel HD, Direct Hitch, Delux Hood etc. and also given quotation for the sum of Rs.6,84,000/- on 22.02.2011.After considering the viability of the Complainant’s proposal, the O.P.No.2 sanctioned the loan and delivered the draft in favour of O.P.No.1. After receiving the D/D, the O.P.No.1 delivered Swaraj 735/XM Tractor bearing NO.2973, chassis No.WWTA386228080068, engine No.391352SPA011786 only without supplying trolley tipping type with HD Jack, cage wheel HD, Direct Hitch, Delux Hood and tiller. As the aforesaid accessories were not available, the O.P.No.1 could not deliver the same. The Complainant on good faith signed the delivery report having acknowledged the accessories. After taking delivery of the vehicle without aforesaid equipments/accessories, the Complainant could not utilize the tractor. Complainant requested time and again to O.Ps 1 & 2 for supply of trolley and other equipments. But the O.P.No.2 demanded the monthly instalment without enquiring non-delivery of trolley and other equipments. The Complainant further states that he is entitled to subsidy of Rs.90,000/- from Govt. but the O.Ps 1 & 3 in their joint collusion withdrawn the subsidy. Further, the O.P.No.1 also out of grudge refused servicing or check up of the vehicle in due time on the plea of non-availability of mechanic. So alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps the Complainant filed this case on 25.03.2013 praying for a direction to O.P.No.1 to provide trolley tipping type with H.D. Jack, Delux Hood, Direct Hitch, Cage Wheel HD, Tiller with the stipulated period or to return the amount of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from 08.03.2011, O.P.No.3 be directed to deposit the subsidy amount in the account of the Complainant and O.Ps be director for payment of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- to Complainant.
O.P.No.1 in his written version submitted that the Complainant has received all the articles as per quotation and signed the challan & receipt on 08.03.2011 after receiving the articles along with Tractor Trolley etc..The Complainant had availed loan from O.P.No.2 and in order to avoid repayment of instalment dues the Complainant has filed this false case beyond the period of limitation with an ulterior motive. As such, the O.P.No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
O.P.No.2 filed written version stating therein that the O.P. No.1 had given quotation for the sum of Rs.6,84,000/- for sanction of Bank loan to purchase Tractor. Accordingly, the Complainant gave proposal to O.P.No.2 for sanction of loan. After perusal of all documents, quotation of O.Ps 1 & 3 the Complainant executed letter of hypothecation of vehicle i.e. agreement with O.P.No.2 on 8.3.2011 for tractor loan. According to agreement the Complainant shall repay the loan amount of Rs.5,50,000/- by 14 equal monthly instalment of Rs.39,236/- and first of such instalment being payable on the 8th day of September,2011. But till today the Complainant has not paid all loan instalment amount to O.P.No.2. As on 16.11.2013, an amount of Rs.6,24,042/- including interest is outstanding against the Complainant. Hence, the O.P.N.2 prayed for dismissal of the complainant as the Complainant is a defaulter in repayment of loan dues.
O.P.No.3 has been set exparte on 21.03.1014 as he failed to file written version.
We have heard the Ld.Counsel appearing for O.Ps and gone through the record. The grievance of the Complainant is that he has not been supplied with the accessories of the tractor such as trolley tipping type with H.D. Jack, Delux Hood, Direct Hitch, Cage Wheel HD, Tiller worth Rs.1,48,000/- by the O.P.No.1 even though he has received Rs.6,84,000/- from O.P.No.2 towards supply of tractor and accessories as per his quotation dt.22.02.2011. The Complainant has further alleged non-release of subsidy amounting to Rs.90,000/- by O.P.No.3. While going through the record, it is revealed that the tractor in question was registered with R.T.O., Bhadrak on 08.03.2011. According to O.P.No.1, the Complainant signed the delivery challan bearing No.60 having invoice No.70 dt.8.3.2011 after receiving the vehicle and other accessories in good condition.
In the aforesaid premises, burden lies on the Complainant to prove that he has not received the accessories from O.P.No.1 at the time of taking delivery of tractor. It has been admitted by the Complainant in his complaint petition that on good faith he signed the delivery report having acknowledged the accessories. If the Complainant on good faith or under compulsion received the tractor without accessories from O.P.No.1, he could later on demand the same from O.P.No.1 by making correspondences. There is no document in the record from the side of Complainant to the effect that the O.P.No.1 has not supplied accessories of tractor worth Rs.1,48,000/- at the time of delivery of the tractor. Even though the Complainant had purchased the tractor in question from O.P.No.1 on 08.03.2011 with the financial assistance of O.P.No.2-Bank, he has not intimated the O.P.No.2 about non-delivery of accessories of the tractor by O.P.No.1. On the other hand, it is found that the Complainant has defaulted in repayment of loan dues to O.P.No.2 and as on 16.10.2013 a sum of Rs.6,24,042/- is lying outstanding against the Complainant. Complainant has not denied huge outstanding dues of O.P.No.2-Bank. So we are convinced that the Complainant in order to avoid repayment of loan dues within the stipulated period of 14 equal monthly instalments, coming from September,2011 has filed this case after 2 years of purchase of tractor alleging non-delivery of accessories of tractor by O.P.No.1 and subsidy amount by O.P.No.3. It is no doubt true that release of subsidy by Government is not a consumer dispute. As such, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. Accordingly, it is ordered:
O R D E R
In the result, we find no merit in the complaint petition. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed on contest against O.Ps 1 & 2 and dismissed exparte against O.P.No.3. Parties to bear their own costs.
