DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.C. No. 21 of 2011
Rabi Karmi, S/o. Late Thaleswar Karmi, aged about 36 years, Occupation – Cultivation, R/o. village Sanbhalupali, P.S. Binka, District – Subarnapur
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. Manti Agrawalla, Authorised Dealer Eicher Show Room, Dunguripali,
At/P.O./P.S. Dunguripali, District- Subarnapur
2. Branch Manager, S.B.I., Gajbandh,
At/P.O. Gajbandh, P.S. Rampur, District- Subarnapur
…..…… Opp. Party
Advocate for Complainant …………. Sri S.N.Sahu
Advocate for O.P. No.1 …………. Sri R.Agrawal
Advocate for O.P. No.2 …………. Sri P.N.Danta
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgement 26.09.2015
J U D G E 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 case of the complainant is that he is a farmer. Being influenced by the proposal and scheme of subsidy of agent of O.P. No.1 he approached the O.P. No.2 for a tractor finance . There after the complainant submitted all necessary documents as required by the O.P. No.2 and deposited a sum of Rs.1,33,000/- opening a new joint pass book in his name and his father. There after as per the instruction of O.P. No.2 the complainant went to the show room of O.P. No.1 and received the tractor. That after this as his father Tahaleswar Karmi died, the complainant as the Karta of the family managed the family affairs. The complainant approached the O.P. No.2 to provide the pass Book lying deposited in his name and in the name of his father. The O.P. No.2 neither supplied the pass book nor disclosed the account No. of the pass book. The other accessories like Trailor, Case wheel plough, etc. has not been supplied to complainant, for which he is unable to perform his agricultural work. The complainant is also unable to run the vehicle freely due to want of registration.
-: 2:-
The complainant avers that the O.P. No.1 assured for availing subsidy, so the complainant is entitled to subsidy amount to the tune of Rs.90,000/- as told by the O.Ps. at the time of registration for the purchase of Tractor. Hence he has prayed that the O.P. No.2 be directed to supply him the pass book and the O.Ps. be directed to take steps for release of all accessories of tractor. The complainant has also prayed that the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/- with interest be released in his favour, compensation of Rs.5000/- and litigation cost be borne by the O.Ps.
The O.P. No.1 has filed version. According to him he has never influenced the complainant to purchase the tractor. The complainant and his father approached the bank for loan and bank provided loan to purchase the tractor.
The complainant has received Tractor, Trailor and other accessories as per detail mentioned in invoice No.32 and 224 dt.28.12.2010. The complainant has signed on this invoice. Registration of Tractor and Trailor has been done before the R.T.O., Bargarh vide Regd. No.OR-17-H-8240. Complainant obtained valid fitness certificate and used the tractor for agricultural purposes.
This O.P. further avers that in case of Govt. sponsor scheme, the Govt. will provide subsidy. In this case the complainant directly availed loan from the Bank, no subsidy is abailable on his loan account. Hence this O.P. prays to dismiss the complaint.
The O.P. No.2 has filed written version. According to him the complainant has received the Tractor, Trailor along with all other accessories from M/s. Shree Shyam Motors, Dunguripali vide retail invoice No.32 and 124 dt.28.12.2010. He has also supplied the pass book at the time of disbursement of loan. This O.P. avers that the complainant has performed his agricultural work with the Tractor. This O.P. further avers that complainant has borrowed loan under Agricultural finance scheme from the bank and there is no subsidy under the scheme. It is also averred that the complainant has registered the tractor and Trailor at R.T.O., Bargarh vide Regd. No.OR-17-H-8240 and No.OR-17-H-8241 respectively. The R.T.O. Bargarh has also issued fitness certificate on 9.3.2011. This O.P. avers that the complainant has filed this false case in order to avoid repayment of loan and accordingly he has prayed that this complaint case be dismissed.
-: 3:-
The complainant and his advocate remained absent during hearing and no step was taken by them. So we have heard the learned counsel for O.P. No.1 and 2. This case is being disposed basing on the materials available on record and upon examination of the submissions of learned counsel for the O.Ps.
From the pleadings of the parties and submission of learned counsel the moot question that requires consideration by the Forum is - Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps.?
The complainant alleged that all the accessories of the tractor has not been supplied to him. The copy of invoice No.32 and 224 dt.28.12.2010 is there on record and the signature of Ravi Karmi is also there. From this we ascertain that the complainant has received the tractor alongwith accessories. The complainant has alleged that he could not registered the vehicle due to want of documents. But photo copy of the registration certificate is there on record, complainant has alleged that copy of pass book and account No. has not been supplied to him. Copy of deposit slip has been filed in this case. From this we ascertain that a sum of Rs.5000/- has been deposited by the complainant in A/c. No.31558533591 on 24.10.2011. Further the complainant alleged that subsidy amount has not been released in his favour. O.Ps. alleged that in the loan scheme availed by the complainant there is no provision for subsidy. Neither the complainant nor his advocate appeared to explain that there is provision for subsidy in the loan scheme.
For the reasons stated above we are of the considered opinion that there has not been any deficiency of service by the O.Ps.
In the result, this complaint case is dismissed. No Cost.
Dated the 26th September 2015
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.26.9.2015 Dt.26.9.2015
