Orissa

Sonapur

CC/17/2016

NARESH KUMAR KHATUA,A.A(38)Years. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. SANANDA BEHERA,A.A(38)Years,Proprietor,M/S-Behera Tractors,Authorised Dealer of Mahindra Gujarat - Opp.Party(s)

SRI N.K.TRIPATHY AND S.K.JHANKAR.

15 Dec 2017

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/2016
( Date of Filing : 23 Sep 2016 )
 
1. NARESH KUMAR KHATUA,A.A(38)Years.
S/O-BHAGIRATHI KHATUA,Occupation-Cultivation,R/O.Vill-Sahupada,PO-Ainlapali,PS-Baunsuni,Dist-Boudh(Odisha).
BOUDH
ODISHA
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1. SANANDA BEHERA,A.A(38)Years,Proprietor,M/S-Behera Tractors,Authorised Dealer of Mahindra Gujarat Tractor,2.Branch Manager,Andhra Bank,Sonepur Branch.
1.AT-In front of Poddar Petrol Pump,N.H.-42,Bhatra,Dhanupali,PO/PS-Dhanupali,Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha,2.R/O-Sonepur Town,PO/PS-Sonepur,Dist-Subarnapur.
ODISHA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Subash Chandra Nayak PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sanjukta Mishra MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Haladhara Padhan MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 15 Dec 2017
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR

C.D. Case No.17 of 2016

Naresh Kumar Khatua, S/o. Bhagirathi Khatua, aged about 38 years, Occupation – Cultivation, R/o. village Sahupada,  P.O. – Ainlapali, P.S. Tarbha, District – Subarnapur.

………….. Complainant

Vrs.

1.         Sananda Behera, aged about 38 years, S/o. Sradhakara Behera, Prop. M/s. Behera Tractors, Authorised Dealer of Mahindra Gujarat Tractor, At – In front of Poddar Petrol Pump, N.H.-42, Bhatra, Dhanupali, P.O./P.S. Dhanupali, District – Sambalpur (Odisha). Permanent address R/o. Gahirpali, P.O. Godloisingha, P.S. Jujumura, District - Sambalpur.

2.         Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Sonepur Branch, R/o. Sonepur town, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur.

 

………….. Opp. Parties

 

Advocate for Complainant                                        ……….  Sri N.K.Tripathy

 

Advocate for the O.P.  No.2                                                  ……….  Sri B.C.Panigrahi

 

Present

Sri S.C.Nayak, President

Smt.S.Mishra,             Lady Member

Sri H.Padhan,            Male Member

 

Date of Judgment  Dt.15.12.2017

J U D G M E N T

By Sri S.C.Nayak, P.

 

This is complainant’s case alleging deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps.

 

            The facts of the complainant’s case is described below.

            The complainant wanted to purchase a new Mahindra Gujarat 35 HP Tractor Model Shaktiman 312 with Trailor. For this purpose the complainant approached the O.P. No.1 and paid him Rs.2,04,000/- through two numbers of cheques. The O.P. No.1 received the same and issued money receipts to the complainant.

 

As the complainant could not arrange the entire amount, he approached the O.P. No.2 for financial help. The O.P. No.2 intimated the complainant to provide estimate and quotation and the complainant after receiving the quotation and estimate produced the same before O.P. No.2 alongwith other documents.

 

The O.P. No.2 sanctioned loan in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- which was paid to the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 after receiving the same             has provided money receipt vide No.BT/29-2013-14 to the complainant. Again the O.P. No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-:  2  :-

demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- and the complainant without calculating the paid amounts paid that sum through cheque and the O.P. No.1 after receiving the same has provided receipt vide No.BT-30-2013-14 dt.24.1.2014. So the complainant avers that the O.P. No.1 has received excess amount of Rs.20,000/- from him.

 

That, although the O.P. No.1 supplied tractor and trailor to the complainant, he has not supplied the required documents to the complainant for which the same could not be registered. On 15. 10.2015 while the Tractor was moving on road, the M.V. staff of Boudh checked the tractor and put fine of Rs.13,600/- only.

 

            As the tractor and trailor has not yet been registered there will be huge penalty for its registration and the O.P. No.1 is liable for the same. The complainant approached the O.P. No.1 several times to provide the relevant documents but the O.P. No.1 did not provide the same. At last, on 23.7.2016 the O.P. No.1 refused to provide the same at Sonepur in presence of O.P. No.2.

 

            Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint case claiming that the O.P. No.1 should be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.20,000/-. He has also prayed that the O.P. No.1 should pay Rs.13,6000/- the fine amount paid by the complainant. He has also claimed Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.

 

            The O.P. No.1 though entered appearance through advocate has not filed version for reasons best known to him. The O.P. No.2 has filed version. He has alleged that he has not committed any deficiency of service. Accordingly he has claimed that this complaint case be dismissed with heavy cost.

 

            We have heard learned counsels for complainant and O.P. No.2. O.P. No.1 remained absent during hearing. From the pleadings of the parties and submissions of learned counsels the following points fall for determination by the Forum.

 

1).        Have the O.Ps. committed deficiency of service  ?

2).        To what relief the complainant is entitled  ?

 

            These two points are taken together for adjudication as they are interrelated.

 

            In para 10 of his complaint petition the complainant has averred that the O.P. No.2 has been arrayed as party to the complaint petition to adjudicate the dispute                       properly through no claim is advanced against him. We find that although the O.P. No.2 is a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-:  3  :-

necessary party in this case, he has not committed any deficiency of service as he has no role to play in the supply of documents by the O.P. No.1. So he is freed from the liability.

 

            So far as O.P. No.1 is concerned, though he has delivered the vehicle he has not  supplied the relevant documents for which the vehicle could not be registered. As a result of this the complainant had to pay a fine of Rs.13,600/-. He has also taken Rs.20,000/- in excess. So this O.P. has committed deficiency of service.

 

            Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. Since the O.P. No.1 has not supplied the documents for which the vehicle could not be registered, he is directed to get the registration and insurance of the vehicle done at his own cost. He is also directed to refund Rs.20,000/- taken by him in excess. He is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.13,600/- which the complainant has paid as fine.

 

            Taking the totality of the facts and circumstances into consideration the complainant is also entitled to Rs.30,000/- as composite compensation for mental agony, harassment and allied factors and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation. We order accordingly.

 

O R D E R

            It is hereby ordered as follows  :-

1).        The O.P. No.1 is directed to get the insurance and registration of the tractor and trailor done at his own cost and handover the relevant documents like R.C. Book, Smart Card, sale invoice to the complainant.

2).        The O.P. No.1 is also directed to pay to the complainant Rs.69,600/- (Rupees Sixty Nine thousands Six hundred)  only

 

            All these should be done within one month from the date of order. Complaint is allowed.

Dated the 15th December 2017

 

                                                                                                                  Typed to my dictation

                            I agree.                                I agree.                            and corrected by me.

 

 

                     Sri H.Pradhan,                     Smt.S.Mishra,                             Sri S.C.Nayak

                      Male Member                       Lady Member                                  President

                      Dt.15.12.2017                        Dt.15.12.2017                                Dt.15.12.2017

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Subash Chandra Nayak]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sanjukta Mishra]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Haladhara Padhan]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.