DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 4 of 2013
Narendra Prasad Acharya, S/o. Late Latabana Acharya, aged about 45 years, R/o. village – Jagannathpali, P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. The Branch Manager, Bolangir District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Ullunda Branch, At/P.O./P.S. Ullunda, District – Subarnapur.
2. M/s. Aayusmita Tractor & Motor, Sonepur, Prop. Bunty Panigrahi, At – Sonepur, Block Chowk, P.O./P.S. Sonepur, District - Subarnapur.
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri G.S.Panda
Advocate for the O.P. No.1 …………. Sri P.K.Hota
Advocate for the O.P. No.2 …………. Sri A.Mishra
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.16.03.2016
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 B.M. B.D.C.C. Bank Ullunda Branch and Prop. M/s. Ayusmita Tractors Sonepur
The factual matrix of the case in hand is that the complainant is a cultivator. He earns his livelihood from cultivation and he does not have any other sources of income. The complainant applied for tractor loan under M.T. agricultural scheme before the O.P. No.1. Being instructed by the O.P. the complainant deposited margin money of Rs.2,00,000/-, his title deed and title deed of the guarantor.
It is alleged that after receiving margin money the O.P. No.1 obtained signature of complainant and Ratra Sahu on some blank paper and forms. On good faith both of them signed on the said documents. That M/s.Aayusmita Tractors, Sonepur who gave the quotation expressed his willingness to supply the tractor. At the time of signing the document the complainant requested the O.P. No.1 not to deliver the draft or cash to the O.P. No.2 unless and until the tractor is supplied to him.
That after a long time the complainant received a letter dt.26.7.2011 from O.P. No.1 from which he came to know that loan has been sanctioned in his favour for which O.P. No.1 had demanded repayment of the loan amount. Till then the complainant has not received the tractor. Upon enquiry he
-: 2 :-
came to know from O.P. No.1 that loan has been sanctioned in his favour since July 2010 and draft of Rs.6, 82,800/- has been issued in favour of O.P. No.2. The complainant protested the matter as till that date he had not received any tractor from O.P. No.2.
It is alleged by the complainant that inspite of written letter of the complainant, the O.P. No.1 in connivance with O.P. No.2 without supplying the tractor or giving loan to the complainant created a loan in his favour manipulating the blank documents. After that by the intervention of O.P. No.1, the O.P. No.2 delivered a tractor on dt.9.1.2012 without giving the original sale certificate.
The complainant approached the O.P. No.1 and 2 several times to supply the sale certificate, though the O.P. No.1 advised the O.P. No.2 to supply the original sale certificate vide letter No.175 dt.25.6.2012, he has not supplied the same.
It is alleged by the complainant that though the tractor was delivered to him on 9.1.2012, but due to want of original sale certificate the tractor could not be insured for which it is lying unused. Thereafter the complainant send pleader notice to the O.P. No.1 and 2. After this notice the O.P. No.1 is threatening to take away the tractor from the complainant and to initiate legal proceeding against him. The O.P. No.2 has not replied to the pleader notice.
For this the complainant has sustained heavy financial loss. He is unable to registered and insure the tractor. Therefore he has prayed that the original sale certificate be supplied to him, sanction of loan should be calculated from the date when the original sale certificate will be supplied. All the demand notices should be withdrawn. Compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- may be paid to the complainant. Interest @ 18% be paid on the margin money and the O.Ps. be directed not to take possession of the tractor till finalization of this case.
In this case the O.P. No.1 has filed version and the O.P. No.2 has adopted the version filed by the O.P. No.1. The O.P. No.1 has averred that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,83,800/- as margin money and not Rs.2,00,000/-. It is also averred that the complainant and guarantor has put his signature on the loan application form and other documents after understanding the contents as they are literate persons. It is also alleged that the Bank has not committed any mistake in delivering the draft to O.P. No.2 . The draft was given on 20.7.2010 and it was received by the O.P. No.2 on the same day. It is alleged by this O.P. that O.P. No.2 received the tractor on 20.7.2010 as on the same day the tractor was delivered to the complainant vide invoice No.1 dt.20.7.2010.
This O.P. avers that after this bank has written several letters to the complainant for submission of R.C. Book and insurance papers. The complainant has sent letter to O.P. No.1 on 18.6.2012 intimating the fact that original sale certificate was not given by the dealer. Thereafter the O.P. No.1 sent letter to O.P. No.2 to supply the sale certificate vide letter No.175 dt.25.6.2012.
-: 3 :-
This O.P. avers that the documents show that the complainant received the tractor with all accessories and he was well aware of the sanction of his loan. It is alleged that the complainant has signed the D.P. Note on 19.7.2010 and he has received the tractor from O.P. No.2 on 20.7.2010 vide invoice No.1. This O.P. avers that he has nothing to do with the sale certificate. It is the liability of O.P. No.2. So this O.P. prays that this complaint case be dismissed.
We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the materials on record. From, the pleadings of the parties, submissions of learned counsels during hearing the following points fall for determination by the Forum :-
i). Has there been deficiency of service by the O.Ps. ?
ii). To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
So far as the O.P. No.1 is concerned he has given the draft to O.P. No.1 in advance before the delivery of the tractor to the complainant. This action of the O.P. No.1 cannot be faulted in as much as unless the O.P. No.2 gets the draft, he will not be in a position to deliver the tractor to the complainant. The complainant wrote to the O.P. No 1 regarding the receipt of tractor on 9.1.2012 and he also intimated that he has not received the sale certificate. This intimation was given to the O.P. No.1 on 18.6.2012. Shortly there after on 25.6.2012 the O.P. No.1 advised the O.P. No.2 to sent original sale certificate to the complainant. It is ascertained from the copy of letter No.175 dt.25.6.2012 filed by the complainant. The complainant has written letter to the O.P. No.1 stating there in that his loan has been sanctioned and the draft should be given to the supplier after he receives the tractor. This letter has been received by the O.P. No.1 on 17.7.2010. So on 17.7.2010 the complainant was aware that his loan has been sanctioned. So from 17.7.2010 to 9.1.2012 he remained silent without getting the tractor. This does not appeal to common sense. For the reasons stated above we are not in a position to fix any liability on the O.P. No.1.
Now it is to be seen whether there has been deficiency of service by the O.P. No.2 or not. The O.P. No.2 has claimed to have delivered the tractor to the complainant on 20.7.2010 vide invoice No.1. This has been filed by the O.P. No.1 we have perused this invoice/Delivery challan No.1 dt.20.7.2010 filed by the O.P. No.1 in this case. In this invoice the complainant has signed in English. His signature tallies with the signature given by him in the complaint petition. But this document does not contains the name of sale certificate. So from this document no conclusive proof can be drawn that original sale certificate was supplied by the O.P. No.2. to the complainant.
Original sale certificate is a separate document which is issued in Form No.21 under Rule 47(a) & (d) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules by the dealer, which is required to be presented alongwith the application of Registration of a Motor Vehicle. In the instant case the advocate for the O.P. No.2 has filed a copy of sale certificate on 8.2.2016. We have perused the sale certificate. This certificate bears date 9.1.2012. But at the bottom the heading customer signature has been left blanks. So the customer i.e. the
-: 4 :-
complainant has not signed on it. So from this a conclusion can be draw that this certificate was given to the complainant on 9.1.2012. Further more this certificate is coming from the custody of O.P. No.2, not from the custody of the complainant.
Further more, it is the duty of the dealer to intimate the R.T.O. regarding the sale of the vehicle as per provisions of Rule 36 of the Orissa Motor Vehicle Rules. The same is extracted below :-
“ Rule 36 – Furnishing of return by manufacturer or dealer - ”
i). The manufacturer or dealer shall furnish to the registering authority having jurisdiction in the locality the information in form XIII and from XIV in respect of the vehicles in stock and sold by him during every month by 15th of succeeding month.
ii). The manufacturer or dealer shall furnish a copy of the sale certificate in Form No.21 prescribed under Rule 47 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, to the registering authority of the concerned region where the vehicle is intended to be registered.
So when the O.P.No.2 alleges that the vehicle in question was sold and delivered to the complainant on 20.7.2010, it was his duty to furnish the return to the R.T.O. concerned by 16.8.2010. Further more it was also his duty to furnish a copy of the sale certificate to the R.T.O. concerned as per Sub-rule (2) of the Rule 36 quoted Supra. Being asked by us the O.P. No.2 is not able to inform us regarding the compliance of said rule.
So this casts shadow of doubt regarding the sale and delivery of the vehicle on 20.7.2010. Be it as it may, cumulatively all the factors narrated supra leads us to the irresistible conclusion that neither the R.T.O. concerned nor the complainant was supplied with the sale certificate of the concerned vehicle. For this the vehicle in question could not be registered or insured. This is deficiency of service on the part of O.P. No.2.
Now it is to be seen to what relief the complainant is entitled. Since the complainant could not register or insure the vehicle due to want of sale certificate, we direct the O.P. No.2 to supply the sale certificate to the complainant. The O.P. No.2 is also directed to get the registration and insurance of the vehicle done at his own cost. Further more, the O.P. No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony, harassment and allied factors, which also includes cost of litigation. We order accordingly.
-: 5 :-
O R D E R
It is hereby ordered as follows :-
1. The O.P. No.2 is directed to get the registration and insurance of the vehicle done at his own cost.
2. The O.P. No.2 is directed to supply the sale certificate of the vehicle to the complainant.
3. The O.P. No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousands) only to the complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation.
All these should be done within one month from the date of order.
Complaint is partly allowed.
Dated the 16th day of March 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Smt. S.Mishra Sri S.C. Nayak
Lady Member President
Dt.16.03.2016 Dt.16.03.2016
