Orissa

Kendujhar

52/2014

Sirapani Mahanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Jayshree Automobiles, - Opp.Party(s)

02 Dec 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 52 OF 2014

Sirapani Mahanta, aged about 42 years,

S/O: Late Narahari Mahanta, At: Bhalukipatal,

Post- Kathabari, Dist: Keonjhar                             ………………………………Complainant

                            Vrs.

1. Jayashree Automobiles,

At- Nihalsingh Chhak, Dhangarpada,

Post- Keonjhar Bazar, Dist- Keonjhar- 758002

2. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.

Swaraj Division, 1st Floor,

Plot No.13, Unit-6, Ganganagar, Bhubaneswar

3. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India,

(Jagannath Market Complex)

Magurgadia, Ward No.12, P.O/Dist -Keonjhar-758001

4. The Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.

At/P.O/Dist- Keonjhar

5. District Agriculture Officer,

At/Post: Ghatagaon, Dist- Keonjhar                    ..…..…………………………Op. Parties

 

Advocate for the Complainant   - Self

Advocate for the O.P. No.1 to 3 - Sri P.K. Acharya

Advocate for the O.P. No.4 & 5  - Self

 

PRESENT- Sri A.K. Purohit, President

                    Smt. B. Giri, Member (W)

                   Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member (M) (Absent on the date of Pronouncement)

Date of Hearing - 06.10.2015                                                Date of Order -02.12.2015   

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Sri A.K. Purohit, President:

1.   The complainant has preferred this case alleging deficiency in banking service.

2. The case of the complainant is that, he had applied for an agricultural loan to O.P. No.3 under the scheme of the APICOL for purchasing a tractor for his agricultural purpose. Accordingly the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,68000/- with the O.P.3 and after observing all the formalities the O.P. No.3 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs. 5,02,000/- and handover a DD amounting to Rs.6,70,000/-(including the deposited amount of Rs.1,68,000/-) to the complainant for purchase of the tractor from O.P.1. The complainant handover the said DD along with Agro permit to the O.P. No.1 but the O.P. No.1 after refusal of the same twice had lastly on dated 9.9.2014 delivered a SWARAJ tractor model No.724XM orchard along with accessories and hydraulic trailer for a consideration of Rs.6,70,000/-. The complainant alleges that although he had applied for the loan under the agricultural scheme wherein he is entitled to subsidy, but he was debarred from the same due to the negligent act of the O.Ps and sustain financial loss. Further the complainant alleges that the O.Ps have not followed the guideline of the agricultural scheme for which he had paid the full amount for the purchase of the tractor. The complainant prays for refund of the excess amount received by the O.P.

3.  All the O.Ps have contested the case by filing their written version. The O.P. No. 1 denied the complainant’s allegation and averred that, on the request of the complainant he had supplied a quotation on dated 20.4.2013 for the finance of a tractor from the Union Bank of India vide quotation No. JA/Q/019 for Rs.6,70,000/- and accordingly the complainant had produced a draft amounting to Rs.6,70,000/- issued by the Union Bank of India in favor of Jayshree Automobiles. After receipt of the said draft the O.P.1 delivered the Swaraj Tractor 724 XM ORCHARD with hydraulic trolley to the complainant on dated 25.12.2013 and supplied the sell certificate and bill of the tractor and trolley on dated 9.9.2014. Hence the O.P. No.1 clams no deficiency in service on his part. According to the O.P. No.2 he is the manufacturer of the Swaraj Tractor and O.P.1 is his authorized dealer. After receipt of the order from the dealer he had supplied the Swaraj tractor to the dealer and hence denied the complainant’s allegation and claims for dismissal of the case. According to O.P. No. 3 , the complainant had applied for a SRTO tractor loan and after observing all formalities and after receiving the initial deposit of Rs. 1,68,000/- the O.P.3 sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.5,02,000/- in favor of the complainant and issued a draft for the amount of Rs.6,70,000/-. The O.P.3 denied the complainants allegation and averred that the complainant has never applied for a agricultural loan and all the papers including the hypothecation agreement have been prepared as per SRTO tractor loan wherein the complainant has signed. The O.P.3 claims no deficiency in service on his part. According to O.P. 4 & 5 the complainant is not a beneficiary of the scheme and is not entitled to the subsidy. The O.P.4 & 5 have not come up with a specific case.

4.    Heard both the parties. The complainant appears in person and submitted that, he has observed all formalities as per the subsidy scheme and produced the Agro permit before the O.P.1 and he is entitled to the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-. The learned advocate for the O.P. No. 3 submitted that, the loan was sanctioned under S.R.T.O. tractor loan and accordingly a hypothecation agreement was executed between the parties and hence O.P. 3 has acted bonafidely and there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.3.

5.    Perused the material available on record. The admitted fact of the case is that, the O.P.3 has sanctioned a loan amounting to Rs.5,02,000/- after receiving the initial deposit of Rs. 1,68,000/- and issued a draft of Rs.6,70,000/- for the purchase of the tractor by the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that, the O.P.1 has supplied the tractor along with the trolley and accessories for the said amount of Rs.6,70,000/- to the complainant. With these admitted facts the point for consideration is whether the complainant has applied the agricultural loan under the scheme of the APICOL or has applied under the S.R.T.O. tractor loan.

6.   To decide the aforesaid issue it is necessary to quote the relevant portion of the guideline issued by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Odisha for purchasing machinery and equipment under the subsidy scheme:- “D- Generation of permit/Role of DAO, xxxxx The system in turn will generate the permit order as per the availability of target. xxxx After generation of the permit order the DAO will sign on the hard copy and hand over it to the beneficiary.

E- Procurement:- After generation of permit the computer will send SMS and Email to the registered vendor. xxxx The vendor can sell the combine harvester at the full cost as the subsidy involvement is high and the subsidy would be released to the beneficiaries bank account. In all other case the vendor must sell machinery after deducting the subsidy cost from its price.”

7.   In this case it is seen from the documentary evidence filed by the complainant that he had produced the agro permit thrice before the O.P.No.1 and the last permit is valid up to 15.6.2014. This evidence disclose that the complainant has followed the aforesaid guideline and obtained the permit as per the subsidy scheme. Suppressing the same the O.P. No1 has misguided the complainant and has not deducted the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- from the cost of the tractor as per the guideline which amounts to unfair trade practice. The O.P. No. 3 has not produced any evidence either the hypothecation agreement or any other affidavit evidence to prove that the sanction of loan is under the SRTO tractor loan. Therefore in the absence of any believable evidence it cannot be said that the act of the O.P. No.3 is bonafide, and the same amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to the negligent act of the O.Ps the complainant sustain financial loss. The O.P.No.5 is the DAO who has issued the Agro permit, He being a public authority, he is under obligation to see whether the complainant has received the benefit under the scheme. The O.P.5 should have extended his helping hand in implementation of a beneficial scheme.

8.   With these discussion and material available on record it is clear that due to the negligent act of the O.Ps the complainant debarred from a beneficial scheme and sustain financial loss and the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant.

HENCE ORDER

The O.P. No. 1 is directed to refund Rs.90,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Further all the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.45,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000/- towards cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Accordingly the case is disposed of.   

 

    I agree                                I agree

 

 (Sri S.C. Sahoo)                  (Smt. B. Giri)                (Sri A.K. Purohit)

   Member (M)                      Member (W)                      President

DCDRF, Keonjhar             DCDRF, Keonjhar             DCDRF, Keonjhar       

 

                                       Dictated & corrected by me.

 

                                               (Sri A.K. Purohit)

                                       President, DCDRF Keonjhar