DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                                                           CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 38/2022

Tejram Patel,

S/O- Hemanta Chandra Patel,

At/Po-Katangpani, Ps-Jamankira

Dist-Sambalpur-768107.                                                                  ……..Complainant

Versus

1. The Proprietor, GSR Motors,

Sambalpur (Kubota Showroom)

At/Po-Maneswar, Ps-Sadar, Dist-Sambalpur-768005.

2. Authorized Officer, The Odisha Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.,

Sambalpur, Industrial Estate, Bareipali

Near Central School,Dist- Sambalpur-768150.

3. RTO, Sambalpur

At-Naxapali,Ps-Sadar, Dist-Sambalpur-768005          

4. Kubota Agricultural Machinery India Pvt. Ltd.

18/4, Mathura Road, Faridabad-121007, Hariyan

India                                                                              …...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                      :-     Self
2. For the O.P.No.1                  :-     Sri. Sri P.K.Nath & Associates
3. For the O.P.No.2 & 3             :-   Ex-parties
4. For the O.P.No.4                  :-     Sri. A.K.Pattnaik & Associates

Date of Filing:31.05.2022,  Date of Hearing :05.06.2023  Date of Judgement : 27.06.2023

Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the complainant is that the complainant purchased a Kubota Tractor model L4508 4WD, Engine No.7LW1303 Ch.No. KBTL 30 DNHL8L 54263for Rs.8,29,696/- from the O.P.No.1 and as per specification made by O.P.No.1 made payment vide Cheque No.516246 for Rs.8,20,000/- and the amount was withdrawn on 19.5.2021 by O.P.No.1 . The O.P.No.1 gave  handwritten note and the agreed price is inclusive of 15 years road tax and fitness, R.T.O  registration fees, insurance  and other benefits . Further the O.P.No.1 promised to process the documents for sanction Rs.90,000/- subsidy. After one month of purchase O.P.No0.1 informed the complainant that Rs.7,99,800/- had to be transferred to the Odisha Agro Industry Corporation Ltd by the Complainant to claim subsidy . On the assurance of O.P.No.1 to get subsidy, R.T.O Registration etc, the O.P.No.1 transferred Rs.7,99,800/- out of received amount Rs.8,20,000/- to S.B.Account No.l11468087309 of the complainant and the said amount was transferred to Account No.33752020346 of the Odisha Agro Industries Corp. Ltd. (O.P.No.1) on 30.6.2021.

For easy procurement of agricultural equipment’s farmer I.D.No.5AM/72 has been issued by Govt. of Odisha . Due to blockage the complainant could not procure a rotavator and a transplant during last year.

Kubota Company provides 5 Year warranty on products, but the O.P.No.1 not provided guarantee card nor responded to service requests. Further the O.P.No.1 although promised to provide a hydraulic trolley but not provided, as a result complainant was prevented to use the tractor for transportation of agricultural products. The complainant hired another tractor spending Rs.50,000/- extra for his need.

The O.Ps are deficienct in their service and harassed the complainant. 

2.                The O.P.no.1 in its version submitted that the complainant has purchased the tractor and admitted the fact of payment. The hand note is a manufactured one. The loan doe to the tractor was sponsored by the O.P.No.2 and the liability to pay the road tax for 15 years, fitness, registration and insurance of the vehicle was on O.P.No.1. The complainant paid Rs.8,20,000/- through Cheque No. 516426 but approval of the subsidy amount of Rs.7,99,800/- was paid to O.P.No.2 . The O.P.No.2 paid a sum of Rs.7, 51,418/- to the O.P.No.1 and deducted a sum of Rs.48, 382/- fee to unknown reason from the priced of the tractor. When O.P.No.1 demanded said amount, the complainant refused to pay the same. The O.P.No.1 failed to perform his part of obligation, such as registration of the vehicle.

The complainant purchased a Nangal with said tractor which cost of Rs.48,000/-. The complainant has to pay Rs.96,382/- but failed for which the O.P. failed to process the registration of the vehicle as well as process the amount of subsidy . As the complainant failed to pay , the O.P. is not bound to provide any services to the complainant. The  complainant has not paid the cost of hydraulic trolley. There is no any deficiency on the part of the O.P.

3. The O.P.no.4 in its version admitted the fact of sale of the tractor. The dealer is responsible for registration of vehicles but not responsible for subsidy registration. Dealer is a facilitator for the subsidy to the extent of documentation. Subsidy registration charges are to be borne by the consumer to the O.A.I.C.(O.P.No.2). The OAIC raised tax receipt based on Govt. department and release the subsidy in due process. The complainant paid Rs.7,99,800/- to O.P.No.2 for registration to receive the subsidy.

Warranty is always shared with the product and on principal to principal basis by O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.4. There is no deficiency nor any product liability against the O.P.No.4.

4. The O.P.No.2 and 3 have been set ex-parte for non-appearance.
5. The complainant filed following documents.-

1. Tax Invoice No.SLR/2021-22 /28 dated 30.6.21 for Rs.7,99.800/-.
2. Account statement, S.B.I, Burla dated 19.5.2021 debited for Rs.8,20,000/-.
3. Copy of cheque No.767866 dated 30.6.2021 for Rs.7,99,800/- in favour of the O.P.No.2.;
4. Hand written note for Rs.8,29,800/- wherein insurance charge shown  Rs.1,000/- inclusive price of RTO, Registration slip dated 25.5.2022 farmer I.D.No.SAM/72352.

The O.Ps have not filed any documents.

6.    After perusal of the complaint, version of O.Ps and documents it is observed that the O.P.No.4 is the manufacturer and there is no any allegations have been made on the product relating to manufacturing ring defects. The O.P.No.3 is the registering authority of the vehicle and as registration charges are not paid, the O.P.No.3 is not coming within the preview of the complaint.
7. The main dispute is between the complainant, O.P.No.1 dealer and the O.A.I.C, O.P.No.2. The complainant alleged that a slip has been issued by O.P.No.1 (shown as annexure-5) in the complaint. The O.P.No.1 denied the issue of the hand written note. It is the admission of the parties that the cost of the Kubota Tractor model L45084WD is Rs.7,99,800/- and it is acknowledged by O.P.No.2 . It is also admission of the parties that the complainant paid Rs.8,20,00/- vide Cheque No.516426. When the value of product is Rs.7,99,800/-, question arises why O.P.No.1 received Rs.8,20,00/- from the complainant . The O.,P.NJo.1 in its version submitted further that the complainant has not paid the value of “Nangal  . To this effect no any documentary evidence has been filed to show the sale. The O.P.No.1 simply denied all the allegations and no any rebuttal evidence has been filed. From this it can be concluded that the O.P).No.1 received (Rs.8, 20,000/-  -  Rs.7,99,800/- = Rs.20,200/-) from the complainant and on what account t it was received failed to explain.

Secondly, at para – 5 of the version the O.P.No.1 pleaded that, “when the complainant failed to deposit the said mount the O.P. failed to process the registration of the vehicle as well as to process the amount of subsidy from the O.P.No.2”, From this very statement it is clear that the O.P.No.1 assured the complainant to get registration the vehicle and assured to process the subsidy registration. The hand-note reflects the assurance of the O.P.No.1 and processing of subsidy from O.P.No.2. The statement of O.P.No.4 stated at Para-2.

“The dealer is only responsible for registration of vehicles with the RTO and other incidental formalities related to road tax and insurance. Dealer is a facilitator for subsidy to the extent of documents. From this very statement is clear that the O.P.NJo.1 assured the complainant to register the vehicle with RTO and apply for subsidy registration.

          The allegation / denial of execution of annexure-5 by O.P.No.1 is not acceptable as the entire evidence goes against the O.P.No.1.

          At Para-7 of the version the O.P.No0.1 stated “The complainant is requiring the services without paying the balance amount of Rs.96, 382/- to this O.P as such this O.P is not bound to provide any services to the complainant.”

          This very statement clarifies that the O.P.No.1 has not provided post-sale services to the complainant nor the warranty card. It corroborates with the evidence of complainant that warranty card was not provided and not attended the service request. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1. Further not providing warranty card to the customer amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.No.1.

8. The allegation of complainant is that he was not provided hydraulic trolley. In the other hand O.P.No.1 alleged that the cost of “Nangal“ has not been paid by the complainant. This shows the dis-satisfaction of complainant and O.P.No.1 but to substantiate no documentary evidence has been filed. The complainant also failed to prove how he spent Rs.50,000/- spending extra by hiring another tractor.
9.  The O.P.No.2 acknowledged the receipt on 25.5.2022 but failed to appreciate their evidence why subsidy was not paid although it was assured by the O.P.No.1 to back Rs.90,000/- . This proves the nexus of O.P.No.1 and 2 and their joint venture. No doubt, the O.P.No.1 by not registering the vehicle deficient in service but also failed to provide the subsidy amount to the complainant in time.

Basing on the supra discussion he following order is passed.

ORDER

The complaint is allowed partly against O.P.No.1 and 2 and dismissed against O.P.No.3 and 4. The O.P.No.1 is directed to take steps of registration, fitness and insurance of the vehicle and hand-over the R.C Book to the complainant within one month of this order. The O.P.No.2 is directed to pay subsidy amount of Rs.90, 000/- along with interest @ 8% P.A. w.e.f 30.6.2021. For deficiency in service the O.P.No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/- each.  In case of non-payment within one month the respective amount will carry 12% interest till realisation. The O.P No.1 is directed to provide service of the vehicle.

                       Order pronounced in the open court today i.e on 27^th day of June,2023.