DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No.6 of 2014
Rajendra Naik, S/o. Jaya Naik, R/o. village Gariapali, P.S. Manamunda, District – Boudh.
………….. Complainant
Vrs.
1. Sananda Behera, S/o. Sradhakara Behera, Prop. of Behera Traders, in front of Poddar Petrol Pump, N.H. 42, Bhatra, Dhanupali, Sambalpur At present R/o. Gahirpali, P.S. Jujumura, District – Sambalpur.
2. Mukesh Mishra, S/o. Balmukunda Mishra, R/o. Janmura, P.S. Sonepur, District – Subarnapur.
………….. Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 …………. Sri S.M.Alli
Present
1. Sri U.N.Purohit, President
2. Sri H.Padhan Member
Date of Filing Dt.06.06.2014
Date of Hearing Dt.19.01.2023
Date of Order Dt.24.01.2023
J U D G E M E N T
By Sri H. Padhan, P.
The complainant files complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.Ps. Brief fact of the complaint is that the complainant is a R/o. village Gariapali under Boudh District, O.P. No.1 Behera Traders is a R/o. Dhanupali and O.P. No.2 Mukesh Mishra R/o. village Janmura of Subarnapur District. The O.P. No.1 deals with Tractor and other agricultural equipment’s. The O.P. No.2 is an agent of O.P. No.1 carry on business at Subarnapur District. The cause of action arosed at village Janmura, hence within the jurisdiction of this Commission. In the last part of 2013 the complainant interested to purchase a Tractor on loan and knowing the fact on 01.12.2013 both the O.Ps. approached the complainant and agreed to supply a new tractor by finance of loan very low price under subsidy scheme. As per O.Ps. the complainant has to pay Rs.1,33,000/- in advance and the rest loan amounts would be adjusted on subsidy money and the complainant will
-: 2 :-
not be liable to clear the loan amount. Further they agreed to supply the tractor within three(3) days of receive of the amounts from the complainant.
On being influenced with the proposal of the O.Ps., the complainant agreed to purchase the tractor from O.P. No.1. Accordingly on 09.12.2013 the complainant has paid Rs.50,000/- through cheque and Rs.20,000/- as cash in total Rs.70,000/- to the O.Ps. at a residential house of O.P. No.2 at village Janmura. The O.P. No.1 has supplied printed money receipts in token of received of the said amounts of Rs.70,000/- by putting his signature on revenue stamp affixed in the money receipt. On 12.02.2014, the complainant paid Cash Rs.63,000/- to the O.Ps. at the house of O.P. No.2 at village Janmura and the O.P. No.1 supplied printed money receipt in token of received of the said amounts Rs.63,000/- from the complainant by putting his signature on a revenue stamp affixed in the money receipt.
After received the entire amount, the O.Ps. assured the complainant to supply the tractor within three (3) days but they have failed to supply the Tractor within the said period and thereafter the complainant approached the O.Ps. and contacted them over Mobile but they avoided the request of the complainant on different plea. On 22.02.2014 the O.P. No.1 has assured to return the money of the complainant with interest within 05.03.2014, in the said document the O.P. No.1 has signed by affixing a revenue stamp and also the O.P. No.2 as well as Upendra Behera have put their signatures in the said document. Unfortunately the O.ps. are failed to supply the Tractor to the complainant and also they have not yet returned the money to the complainant till today. The complainant approached them for return of his amount but they avoided the request of the complainant and at last on 31.05.2014 the O.P. No.1 refused to return the amount. The O.Ps. neither supplied the tractor nor refund the amount of the complainant they are deficient in providing good consumer service and unfair trade practice for that the complainant sustained mental agony, harassment and financial loss so the O.Ps. are liable under C.P. Act for refund of Rs.1,33,000/- with 10% interest, compensation of Rs,1,50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.10,000/-.
-: 3 :-
The O.P. No.1 inspite of received notice failed to appear and filed version as such set exparte. O.P. No.2 filed version and denied the total allegation of the complaint petition, he specifically denied to be the agent of the O.P. No.1 and he has not seen execution of alleged document by O.P. No.1 he has also not signed any documents as claimed by the complainant. The complainant filed Xerox copy of a written document which is not legible and several correction on the said document. The trust worthy of the said document is a matter of question as the complainant failed to produce the said original documents of money receipt of direction of this commission on 26.08.2022 and 15.11.2022 and the payment particular in Bank.
The complainant though filed affidavit not filed the original documents to compare the signature of O.P. No.2 to ascertain the truth, hence it create a cloud of doubts over the documents. As the complainant failed to prove the base document which denied by the O.P. No.2, the burden of proof of payment of the amounts is lies on the complainant at this stage the complainant has to produced the original document and affidavit of the independent witnesses on whose presence the document has been executed by the O.P. No.1. As the complainant is failed to proof his case, the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
File be consigned to record room alongwith a copy of this judgment.
Dated the 24th day of January 2023
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri U.N.Purohit Sri H.Padhan
President Member
Dt.24.01.2023 Dt.24.01.2023
