DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK
Dated the 20th day of November, 2020
C.D Case No. 12 of 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Kartika Chandra Sial
S/o Karunakar Sial
Vill/Po: Shyamsundarpur,
Ps: Simulia,
Dist: Balasore, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Amit Kumar Didwania
S/o Late Jagdish Didwania, the owner of
Dunnock Deo Show Room-Cum-Authorized Dealer
International Tractors Ltd., N.H- 5, Charampa,
Dist: Bhadrak
2. Manager, UCO Bank, Ranital Branch
At/Po: Ranital, Ps/Dist: Bhadrak (R)
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri J. B. Agasti, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri S. Mohanty, Adv & Others
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Sri Chitaranjan Das, Adv & Others
Date of hearing: 11.03.2019
Date of order: 20.11.2020
RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant purchased a Tractor bearing No. (BLANK) along with a Trolley from the o.p No.1. He had applied for a loan to the o.p No.2 for purchasing the said Tractor in the year 2011. The o.p No.1 had given a quotation to the complainant valued at RS.5,18,280/- for the cost of the said Tractor with Trolley on Dt.29.12.2010 but subsequently the o.p No.1 had given another quotation valued RS.6,50,000/- which was sent to the o.p No.2 without the knowledge of the complainant. According to the terms and conditions of the quotation RS. 1,85,000/- Subsidy. The complainant deposited RS.90, 000/- towards the down payment, but the cost of the Tractor and the Trolley was RS.5, 18,280/-. The down payment RS.1, 85,000/- should have been deducted from the real value of the Tractor that is RS. 5, 18,280/-. The o.p No.2 wrongly calculated the interest in respect of the quotation valued RS.6,50,000/- in which the real value is RS. 5, 18,280/-. At present the complainant has repaid the interest amount to RS.2,20, 000/- towards interest along with the down payment RS. 1,85,000/-. When the o.p No.1 issued the quotations the complainant is entailed to RS.90,000/- towards subsidy money and that should have been adjusted in the entire loan amount. But yet the complainant has not received the subsidy amount. As a whole the complainant has repaid RS. 4,95,000/- to the o.p No.2. It is a matter of regret that the o.p No.2 has whimsically imposed interest RS.6,50,000/- upon the complainant. According to the complainant the interest should have been imposed upon him being deducted RS. 2,75,000/- from the principle amount RS. 5,18,280/-. According to the calculation of the complainant mention as follows-:
Quotation subsidy RS. 90,000 plus the false quotation amount RS.6, 50,000/- minus RS.5, 18,280/- is equal to RS.1, 31,720/-. So RS 1, 31,720/- PLUS Subsidy amount RS. 90,000/- the total amount RS. 2, 21,720/- has been grabbed by the o.p No.1. Further the complainant has stated that he had sent a legal notice on Dt. 06.11.2017 to the o.p No.1 and 2 to rectify the loan amount along with the interest imposed upon him.The complainant has also alleged that the o.ps have caused deficiency of service, dishonest trade practice for which he has taken shelter under this commission for obtaining redressal in which the cause of action arose on Dt.06.11.2017 and 05.01.2018. The complainant has sought for the following reliefs -:
- An order be passed against the o.p No.1 to refund RS. 2, 21,720/- to the complainant or be adjusted in the loan amount of the complainant.
- An order be passed against the o.p No.2 to calculate the interest in view of RS. 5,18,780/- but not RS. 6, 50,000/-.
- An order be passed for awarding cost of the litigation and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies) -:
- Retail invoice issued by the o.p No.1. …..one sheet
- Pan Card ...… two sheets
- Fitness certificate ……..two sheets
- Registration certificate ……… two sheets
- Insurance certificate by Reliance general insurance ……. Two sheets
- Goods carriage permit certificate …… two sheets
- Legal notice ….. two sheets
- Statement of accounts issued by the o.p No. 2 …. Seven sheets
On the other hand the o.p No. 1 has appeared to his concerned advocate and filed W/V as follows -:
That, the o.p No.1 has challenged the maintainability and cause of action of this proceeding. The o.p No.1 has denied all the allegations made against him by the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of this proceeding. The o.p No.1 has admitted the facts stated in his W/V that the complainant purchased a Tractor in the year 2011 from the o.p No.1 which was financed by the o.p No.2. The o.p No.1 gave quotations to the complainant as per the prevailing market price . On the date of quotation the o.p No.1 is the only seller who has sold the Tractor and the Trolley to the complainant and received payment from the o.p No. 2. The quotations were given as per the prevailing market price. The complainant has to pay the E.M.I’s including interest to the o.p No.2. The calculation of interest has been prepared by o.p No.2, as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement. The o.p No.1 has received the price Tractor and Trolley from the o.p No.2 on behalf of the complainant as per the prevailing price and as per quotation. The o.p No.1 is no way connected regarding the interest charged by the o.p No.2. The o.p No.1 has received the actual value of the of the Tractor. As the o.p No.1 has received the actual value of the Tractor and Trolley, there is no need of refund any amount to the complainant. The question of subsidy is the outlook of the agricultural department. The complainant is not entitled to the subsidy without impleading the said department as parties. The complainant is stopped to raise any point regarding subsidy. The complainant is a defaulter and is not paying loan dues to the o.p No.2. The complainant has filed this case after seven years of purchasing of the Tractor and Trolley.
Hence complaint is fit to be dismissed as bared by limitation and lack of merits. The o.p No.2 has filed his W/V challenging the maintainability, limitation, cause of action, mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary of parties of this complaint. He has also denied the allegations made in the complaint and averments of the foregoing paragraphs of the complaint. The fact is that , the complainant applied for a agricultural loan before the o.p No.2. After verification of documents of the complainant and the guarantor, the said loan was granted. The complainant and the guarantor executed agreements in favour of the o.p No.2, the o.p No.2 sanctioned the loan as per the quotation brought by the complainant from the o.p No.1 on Dt. 05.01.2011.After the verification of the quotation issued by the o.p No.1 the o.p No.2 issued a sanctioned letter in favour of the complainant and requested him to return the same after putting his signature if he agreed with the terms and conditions of the Bank and after being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the bank, he has signed and returned the same to the o.p No.2. The o.p No.2 opened a loan account bearing No.11640610001981 for rupees RS.6,50,00.00 p/-. The complainant deposited RS.1,85,000/-as his margin money. The o.p No.2 issued a draft in favour of the dealer and same was handed over to the complainant along with a sale order to the o.p No.1. According to the sale order, the o.p No.1 handed over the Tractor, Trolley and other accessories as per quotation to the complainant. The o.p No.2 has got no knowledge about any quotation issued on Dt.29.12.2010in favour of the complainant. As the complainant defaulted in repayment of monthly EMIs loan amount, the o.p No.2 has issued a notice on Dt.19.12.2016 and requested him to repay the loan amount of RS.5,49,977/- with interest as calculated up to Dt.31.10.2016. On receipt the notice the complainant deposited RS.12,000/- on Dt. 30.12.2016 before the o.p No.2 as well as replied to the notice stating that due to his illness for a long time, he spent a huge amount of money for his recovery he could not repay the loan amount regularly. He also confirmed balance loan amount of RS.5,49,977/- laying outstanding against him. The loan was not a Govt. sponsored loan and there is no system of subsidy, so question of subsidy RS. 90,000/- does not arise.
The total loan amount is RS. 6, 50,000/-. The complainant has deposited RS. 1, 85,000/- and balance loan amount is RS. 4, 65,000/-. The o.p No.2 has charged the interest only the loan amount of RS.4, 65,000/- but not up on RS. 6, 50,000/- .The complainant has sent a legal notice to the his concerned advocate to the o.p No.2. On receipt of the said notice the o.p No.2 has replied to that notice on Dt.08.01.2018. The o.p No.2 has admitted that he has not caused deficiency of service, dishonest trade practice, mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
Hence the complaint be dismissed with cost.
Document filed by the o.p NO.1 and 2
No document has been filed either by the o.p No. 1 or by the o.p No.2.
OSERVATION
We have already gone through the averments made in the complaint and the documents as well as the W/V’s filed by the o.p No.1 and 2. The complaint itself suffers from some discrepancies as follows:-
01- such as in the paragraph No.1 of the complaint the number of the Tractor in question is laying blank. The blank space left by the complainant is a fatal to the complainant’s case.
02 – The complainant has not sought for any relief against the o.p No.1. According to his averments made in the complaint the o.p No.1 has not caused any deficiency o0f service, dishonest trade practice, or mental agony to the complainant. So the o.p No. 1 is a mis-joinder of necessary party to this case.
03 - The complainant has claimed the relief of “subsidy” against the o.ps. But the complainant is not aware that the agricultural department of the Govt. of Odisha who is the competent authority to decide regarding the subsidy or to grant the subsidy. The said department is a necessary party to the case. The complainant is stopped to be entitled for the relief. Hence the agricultural department of Govt. of Odisha is the non-joinder to this proceeding.
04- As per the complainant the Tractor and Trolley both have been purchased by the complainant on Dtd. 29.12.2010. The complainant continued to pay E.M.Is till Dt. 21.01.2013, So the cause of action of this proceeding arose in the year 2013. The complainant has sent the legal notice in the year 2017. He has also described in his complaint that the cause of action arose from the date of 06.11.2017. According to the evidence act the legal notice is neither a public document nor a private document, So this proceeding is hit by law of limitation and cause of action. Then the complainant discontinued to pay the E.M.Is. The o.p No.2 has vividly described in his W/V that how the complainant discontinued to repay the E.M.Is and how did he request the o.p No. 2 for not taking any coercive action against him, because he had been falling ill for a long time, So he could not repay the E.M.Is. Then after being come round the complainant also to discontinue repaying the E.M.Is. Further, the complainant has also failed to convince to the commission in what way the o.p No.2 has caused deficiency of service against the complainant.
05- It is an admitted fact that there was a loan agreement executed between complainant and the o.ps. Neither the complainant nor the o.p No.2 has filed the Xerox copy of the loan agreement. So we are in darkness about the terms and conditions of the same.
06- The complainant has described in the paragraph No.6 of the complaint that, “the o.p No.1 who is a very clever person and he has grabbed RS.2, 21,720/- from the complainant’s amount”. The complainant has failed to convince the commission by documentary evidence in which way the o.p No.1 has grabbed the aforesaid amount RS. 2, 21,720/- . This is a false allegation raised by the complainant against the o.p No.1.
07- According to the law of evidence the burden of proof lies upon the complainant to prove his case. The complainant has not come to this commission with cleans hands. So he is not at all entitled to the reliefs, he has sought for. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
This proceeding be and the same is dismissed without cost and compensation.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 20th November, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
