The instant case was instituted on the basis of a petition of complaint file by one Tosir, & Vill. Tofi, P.S.Kaliachak, Dist Malda and the said petition of complaint was registered before this Forum a complaint case No. 91/2016.
The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant purchased one tractor after getting loan from the SBI Kaliachak Branch after mortgaging his 3 bighas of land along with to guarantors. After observing all formatlities the Branch Manager sanctioned the loan to his Loan A/C. 35387812718. After passing the loan the Branch Manager passed the D.O. to Kishan Agro (Tractor Division) Tractor Sales & Service & Spares Authorized Dealer and Mr. Jahangir Ali is the Authorized Dealer of M/s. Kishan Agro. M/s. Kishan Agro did not deliver the said tractor on different pretext.
On 04/01/2016 the complainant submitted an application before the Branch Manager to the effect that if the tractor is not delivered to the complainant then it is quiet impossible for him to clear the loan. Thereafter, the complainant came to the English Bazar Police Station and with the help of the E.B.P.S. another tractor was given to the complainant. At that time the Manager, M/s. Kishan Agro assured him that within one month the Kishan Agro will he will prepare all the documents viz. Tax Insurance, tax, insurance, fitness etc. But ultimately no documents were handed over to the complainant and showroom was closed.
It is the firm belief of the complainant that Zahangir Sk. Prop. Of M/s. Kishan Agro and Branch Manager in connivance with each other did not prepare the documents for running of the tractor for which the tractor is lying idle for which the complainant is unable to pay the dues to the bank for which the complainant has come to this Forum to redress her grievances.
In this case the O.P. No.2 S.B.I. Kaliachak Branch appeared and filed a W/V and contested the case by denying all the material allegations as leveled against the Bank Authority contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form and case is bad for want of necessary parties. The Bank Authority sanctioned the loan for purchase of New Holland Tractor 36002 Model and after putting signature in the letter the bank authority issued the cheque of Rs. 8,38,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakh Thirty Eight Thousand Only) in favour of M/s. Kishan Agro. The bank authority had no knowledge about the non-delivery of the tractor. The further defense case is that due to non-payment of bank loans a certificate case has been filed before the appropriate Forum. Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In order to prove the case the complainant was himself was examined as P.W-1 and cross-examined and he filed the documents which has been marked as exhibits as per exhibited list. Sri Dinobandhu Mondal was examined as O.P.W-1 on behalf of the bank and cross-examined.
Now the point for consideration: - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
::DECISION WITH REASONS::
The complainant submits that unless and until he gets the tractor in question how he can clear the dues? But he further submits that the tractor was purchased for his livelihood for agriculture work for which the loan was taken but unfortunately the said tractor was not delivered to the complainant. On perusal of the record it is found that the loan was sanctioned on 28/12/15 and the amount was transferred to M/s. Kishan Agro through RTGS /NEFT.
On perusal of the record it is found that on 04/01/2016 the complainant submitted an application before the Bank Manager that the delivery of the tractor was not given to the complainant. Ultimately, the tractor was given at the intervention of E.B.P.S. So on perusal of the record it is found that the delivery was passed by the Bank Authority to deliver the vehicle in favour of the complainant as the amount has been transmitted to the account of the O.P. No.1. So in such cases the O.P. No.2 i.e. the bank has no deficiency of service. In this case it is found that the O.P. No.1 i.e. M/s. Kishan Agro did not contest the case in spite of receiving the notices though money was transferred to the credit of O.P. No.1 M/s. Kishan Agro if the Kishan Agro fails to perform the duty so it is the liability of O.P. No.1 to take necessary steps for preparation of the necessary documents so that the complainant may operate the tractor. But the O.P. No.1 has failed to discharge his duty, So the complainant has been able to prove the case ex parte against the O.P. No.1 and the case against O.P. No.2 i.e. State Bank of India Kalichak Branch not has been proved and the case against O.P. No.2 is dismissed.
C.F. paid is correct.
Hence, ordered that
that the case be and the same is allowed ex parte against O.P. No.1 M/s. Kishan Agro and dismissed against the O.P. No.2.
The complainant gets an order for Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only)as litigation cost and for mental pain and agony Rs.30,000(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)totaling Rs. 45,000/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Only) O.P. No.1 is further directed to take necessary steps for registering the vehicle in the name of complainant by paying tax insurance, fitness etc. The amount is to be paid within 45 days from the date of order failing which it will carry interest @ 5 % p.a. from the date of filing of this case. The complainant is not entitled to get the loan amount as the tractor was delivered to him and he is not entitled to get Rs.1,49,736/-(Rupees One Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Seven Hundred Thirty Six Only)towards total amount of installment @ Rs.12,478/- for 12 (Twelve) months each as due to the fault of the O.P. No.1. The complainant did not pay the installment to the bank..
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the Complainant/O.P. free of cost on proper application.
