DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

                                                              SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,

                                        AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144

                                                           C.C. CASE NO. 24 OF 2019

DATE OF FILING: 14.02.2019                                                    DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 08.11.2019

Present                      :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                        Member         :   Jhunu Prasad                        

                                        Member         :   Jagadish Ch. Barman

COMPLAINANT              :  Mr. Tarun Paik, S/o – Probhas Paik, Residing at Vill. – Bahirchak, P.O. + P.S. – Raidighi, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743349. 

• VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                         : 1. Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., 2^nd Floor “Kalpataru”, Khasmallick, P.O. – Dakshin Gobindapur, P.S. – Baruipur, Dist. – South 24 Parganas, Kolkata – 700 145.

                                                2.   Mahindra Financial Service Ltd., Premises no. 7, 4^th Floor, Dr.                                       Ishaque Road, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.

3.   Mahindra B.S. Tractors Pvt. Ltd., 60B, Chowringhee Road, 5^th            Floor,  Kolkata – 700 020.

4.   Mahindra B.S. Tractors Pvt. Ltd., Sridharpur Nandakumar, Dist. – Purbo Medinipur, Pin - 721632.

5.   The Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra Limited, Having its office at Gateway Building Appollo Bhander, Mumbai, Pin – 400001.

6.  Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Having its office at Gateway Building, Appollo, Bhander, Mumbai, Pin – 400001.     

___________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President

Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

           Complainant as above named purchased a brand new Mahindra Tractor from O.P. nos. 3 and 4 on 25.11.2016 for a consideration price of Rs. 10,33,713/- having taken some financial assistance from O.P. nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of earning his livelihood by way of self-employment. Within a few days of the said purchase, the tractor went disordered and complainant had to lodge a complaint before the company. The company sent its engineer several times. The engineer examined the vehicle and came to opine that the vehicle i.e. the tractor of the complainant should have been replaced by a new one. Those engineers told the complainant that a meeting of the company would be held with him within 15 days and thereafter the tractor would be replaced. Since then, one year and 3 months have passed away and neither any meeting is held by the company nor is the tractor of the complainant replaced by a new one. The complainant has suffered a lot of financial crisis for such negligent activity of the company and therefore he has filed the instant case praying for replacement of his tractor and also for payment for compensation etc. Hence, this case.

            O.P. nos. 5 and 6 have not made any appearance in this case in spite of service of notice upon them, vide postal track report kept in the record. The case therefore proceeds ex-parte against them.

            O.P. no.s 1 and 2 have been contesting the case by filing W/V wherein it is submitted by them that they advanced loan to the complainant on the basis of a loan-cum-hypothecation agreement for purchase of tractor by the complainant. Complainant agreed to repay the loan by periodical installments. He paid only 1 installment of Rs. 20,000/- on 05.12.2016 and thereafter has defaulted in repayment of installments of loan since January, 2017. Current due of the company from the complainant is 5,40,000/- and the delay charge is Rs. 2,16,947/- as on the date of filing W/V.

            O.P. nos. 3 and 4 have filed the W/V wherein it is submitted inter-alia that they sold a new tractor to the complainant, being model no. 605 DI ARJUN NOVO – 4WD60HP. The said tractor developed some problems and therefore technicians were sent for repairs. The technicians repaired the defect and the defective parts were also replaced on different dates on 22.05.2017, 06.01.2018 etc. The tractor functioned properly and it worked for 583 hours in total up to 06.01.2018, as goes the meter reading. The complaint is a false and fictitious one, filed with a view to avoiding payment of loan installment. It should be dismissed, as there has arisen no cause of action for filing the case.           

Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

                                                   POINTS FOR DETERMINARTION

1. Is there any cause of action to file the instant case?
2. Are the O.P.s guilty of deficiency in service as alleged?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

     EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES    

Complainant and O.P. nos. 3 and 4 have filed evidence on affidavit. O.P. no. 2 has filed no evidence. 

                                          DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no. 1, 2 and 3:

            Upon perusal of the petition of complaint, W/Vs and other materials on record, it is found that the complainant has not come before the forum with clean hands. It is the version of the complainant that the technicians of the company recommended for replacement of the vehicle, when they found that the vehicle was not repairable. This version of the complainant is downright falsehood. The technician of the company repaired the vehicle, supplied the defective parts and the vehicle ran properly. It is true that the vehicle developed snags 4 times and the company technicians repaired the vehicle on different occasions i.e. on 08.02.2017, 22.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and lastly on 06.01.2018. All these repairing works are substantiated by the copy of job cards dated 08.02.2017, 22.05.2017, 05.06.2017 and 06.01.2018 filed on record by the parties. These job cards also bear a good testimony to the fact that the tractor of the complainant was not in standstill condition and that it was in running condition. Now it transpires that the complainant runs the tractor. But he is found to have stated before the forum that the tractor is completely in stagnant condition and that the company has not replaced the same. So, we do say that the complainant has not come before the forum with clean hands. He is lying through his teeth and therefore he is deemed by the bench of the forum to be an unsuitable person for getting any relief from this forum.

            Complainant has prayed for replacement of the tractor. But, it is evident on record that the tractor is in running condition and it does not require replacement. Further, he i.e. the complainant is also an ungrateful defaulter in repayment of loan. O.P. nos. 1 and 2 stood by him when he was in dire necessity of money. They helped the complainant with money to purchase the tractor. But, the complainant has forgot all about the benevolence of O.P. nos. 1 and 2. So, we do say that the complainant is an ungrateful person. He has no cause of action to bring this case. He has brought this case with an ulterior motive to evade the payment of loan taken by him. The case is not maintainable in law for want of cause of action also. Complainant is not entitled to any kind of relief as prayed for.

            In the result, the case fails.

            Hence,

 ORDERED

            That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.P. nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and dismissed ex-parte against O.P. nos. 5 and 6 with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

Register-in-charge is directed to supply a free certified copy of this judgment at once to the parties concerned.

I/We agree                           Member                                Member                                President

                        Directed and corrected by me

                                                               President