Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Subhasis Roy
For OP/OPs : Raja Bhattacharya
Date of filing of the case :07.12.2017
Date of Disposal of the case :12.05.2023
Final Order / Judgment dtd.12.05.2023
Complainant Hafijul Jola files the present complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and prayed for direction to the OP No.1 to refund some of Rs.1,63,920.00 which was paid by the complainant as down payment for the tractor, take back the tractor and to close the loan account, compensation amounting to Rs.2,00,000.00 and cost of the case.
It is the allegation of the complainant that OP No.1 insisted him to purchase Swaraj 859 TX Model tractor of 55HP in the sale discount which was available to the tune of Rs.1,60,000.00 over the ex-showroom price of Rs.8,53,920.00 and accordingly complainant purchased the same from OP No.1. OP No.1 gave an estimate of total cost of tractor including registration charges, MV Tax and Insurance. As per said calculation, cost of the tractor was determined as Rs.8,53,920.00 and cost of charges for registration, Tax, Insurance etc. was determined as Rs.40,000.00. As per the said calculation total cost of the tractor was fixed as Rs.8,93,920.00.
After deducting the discount of Rs.1,60,000.00, final cost was determined as Rs.7,33,920.00.
Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10,000.00 on 05.07.2015 and tractor was handed over to him under a road challan having engine no.47.5001/SYA01365 and Chassis no.WSCA51618131742 (Model No.855TXHP55). Thereafter complainant deposited total sum of Rs.1,63,920.00 on different dates and OP No.1 issued proper money receipt in favour of the complainant. As per agreement with OP No.1 loan amount was Rs.5,70,000.00 was arranged from financial institute of OP NO.2 , but clever OP NO.1 & 2 gave no document such as tax invoice, loan agreement etc. to the complainant. OP NO.2 gave one Xerox copy of loan repayment schedule where different amount has shown. Complainant became surprised due to clever attitude of OP No.1 & 2 and files this case.
OP No.2 contest the case by filing a W/V and denied the entire allegations.
OP No.2 filed W/V in this case, he stated in this W/V that the case is not maintainable , complainant has no cause of action, complaint is misconceive malafide groundless and not sustainable in law he denied the
(3)
entire allegations. He further stated that complainant had the initial to have loan of Rs.5,70,000/- for purchasing one tractor being chassis no.WSCA51618131742, model no.855TX, HP55, engine no.47.5001/SYA0365. On the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- including registration and insurance of the tractor. OP No.2 finance Rs.5,70,000/- and it was settled that complainant will repay the loan amount in 19 instalments @ Rs.46,500/- per month. Complainant after taking the loan from the OP NO.2 failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the loan by not paying the monthly instalment on time in spite of repeated reminders since the complainant is a regular defaulter and after making payment of only few instalments, the complainant till date did not bother to make almost of the monthly instalment. He prays for dismissal of the case.
OP NO.3 also filed W/V and denied the entire allegations.
OP NO.1 also contest the case and denied the entire allegations.
Trial
We find from the order dated 13.06.2019 that complainant declined to adduce any evidence. OPs also declined to adduce any evidence.
Documents
Following documents have been produced on behalf of the complainant viz :
- Xerox copy of Delivery /Road Challan issued by Bharat Tractors dtd. 05.05.2017........(One sheet)
- Xerox coy of document issued by Bharat Tractors........(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Money Receipt dtd. 19.05.2017 amounting to Rs.40,000.00.......(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Money Receipt dtd. 29.05.2017 amounting to Rs.38,000.00.......(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Money Receipt dtd. 12.09.2017 amounting to Rs.35,920.00.......(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of document issued by Bharat Tractors dtd. 18.08.2017....(One sheet)
- Computer copy of repayment schedule dtd.10.09.2017....(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Tax Invoice dtd. 26.08.2017 amounting to Rs.7,50,000.00....(One sheet)
The following documents have been filed on behalf of OP NO.1-3 viz:-
(4)
- Net copy of statement of loan account...............(one sheet)
Brief Notes of argument.
Complainant in support of his case did not file separate Brief Notes of Argument. On 08.02.2023 he filed a petition praying for treating the complaint petition as BNA and that has been allowed. OP NO.1-3 filed a petition praying for treating their W/V as BNA and that has been allowed.
Decision with Reasons
It is the allegation of the complainant that when he purchased the aforesaid tractor from OP No.1 then he was agreed to give a deduction of Rs.1,60,000.00 from the ex-showroom price of Rs.8,53,920.00. OP No.1 also claimed Rs.40,000.00 as cost of the document, so total value of the tractor was settled to Rs.7,33,920.00 after discount. Out of the said amount complainant on different occasions paid Rs.1,63,920.00 and rest amount was taken from OP No.2 as loan i.e. Rs.5,70,000.00.
On perusal of Delivery/ Road challan we find that aforesaid tractor was given to complainant on 05.05.2017 by the OP No.1.
On perusal of letter head of OP NO.1 we find that value of the tractor was fixed to Rs.8,53,920.00 documentation charges have claimed as Rs.40,000.00.So total amount was fixed as Rs.8,53,920.00 out of which Rs.5,70,000.00 has been arranged from OP NO.2 as loan.Rs.1,60,000.00 has been deducted as S/D. From the remaining amount of Rs.1,63,920.00 an amount of Rs.1,52,000.00 has paid.
Complainant stated in the petition of the complainant that he paid Rs.1,63,920.00 but he could produce money receipt in respect of Rs.40,000.00, Rs.38,000.00, Rs.35,920.00 and Rs.11,000.00 which comes to Rs.1,24,920.00.
Ld. Adv. for the complainant argued that no receipt was given to him in respect of payment of Rs.39,000.00 to him. He further argued that he took loan of Rs.5,70,000.00 from OP NO.2 but document shows loan against tractor valued at Rs.7,50,000.00. He produced one document to that effect.
On careful perusal of the said document we find that financed amount has described as Rs.5,70,000.00 and interest charge as Rs.3,13,500.00. So total amount comes to Rs.8,83,500.00 which will be payable by nineteen instalment from 21.08.2017 to 21.02.2022 @ Rs.46,500.00 per instalment.
(5)
In this context we have carefully gone through the document filed by the OP No.1-3. In the said document financed amount has fixed as Rs.5,70,000.00 interest has charged as Rs.3,13,500.00.
It is the main allegation of the complainant that he paid Rs.1,63,920.00 but that has not been shown in the statement of loan account.
On perusal of statement of loan account we find that all the instalment have shown as due.
We have carefully gone through the petition of the complaint. He stated in para-7 of the petition of complaint that after receipt of Xerox copy of loan repayment schedule from OP NO.2 he came to learn that purchasing price of the tractor has shown as Rs.7,50,000/- and not of Rs.8,53,920/- and by time way OP NO.1-2 adopted unfair trade practice. Hence, he files this case and prayed for direction upon OP NO.1 to refund Rs.1,63,920/- and also prayed for direction upon OP NO.1 & 2 to take back the tractor from the possession of the complainant.
Complainant stated in his complainant that he already paid Rs.1,63,920/- in favour of the OP NO.1 but on perusal of document dated 19.05.2017, 29.05.2017, 12.09.2017. We find that complainant paid Rs.40,000/-, Rs.38,000/-, Rs.35,920/- i.e total on Rs.1,13,920/-. On perusal of document dated 18.08.2017, we find that complainant has paid Rs.11,000/-. So he has able to produce the document in support of payment of Rs.1,24,920/-. On perusal o of document issued by Bharat Tractor, we find that value of the tractor has been shown as Rs.8,53,920/- . Out of which Rs.1,60,000/- has been deducted. So value of the tractor comes to Rs.6,93,920/-. Out of which complainant has paid Rs.1,24,920/- as per my previous discussion, so there was due to Rs.5,69,000/- and OP No.1 would get the same from complainant. As per document (repayment of schedule dated 10.09.2017) We find that in voice amount has shown as Rs. 7,50,000/-. On perusal of document dated 26.05.2017, we find that value of tractor has shown as Rs.7,50,000/-.So, on perusal of both the aforesaid two documents we find that value of the tractor has shown as Rs.7,50,000/-. In the document dated 10.09.2017, we find that there is a note of payment of margin money amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- has been shown and remaining amount of Rs.5,70,000/- has been shown as loan amount. From the said document we find that it has been described therein that the value of the tractor is Rs.7,50,000/- and paid amount (margin money has shown as Rs.1,80,000/-) and remaining amount i. e Rs.5,70,000/- has been shown as loan amount.
There is a difference in between actual transaction and description of the said document. Complainant paid Rs.1,24,920/- but in the said document paid amount has been shown as Rs.1,80,000/-. Value of the
(6)
tractor was actually Rs.6,93,920/- but it has been shown in increased manner as Rs.7,50,000/-. So, we find that value of the tractor has shown by increasing Rs.56,080/-. Payment of the complainant has shown by increasing Rs.55,080/-. OP NO.1-3 failed to show satisfactory explanation in their W/V. But one thing is clear before this Commission that complainant stated in his petition of complaint that he took loan Rs.5,70,000/- from the OP No.2. OP No.2 his W/V stated that complainant took loan of Rs.5,70,000/- from him. So, from the statement of petition of complaint as well as of W/V of OP NO.2 it is clear before us that complainant and OP NO.2 admitted that complainant took loan of Rs.5,70,000/- from the OP NO.2 at the time of purchase of aforesaid tractor. Document i.e repayment schedule dated 10.09.2017 and document filed by OP NO.2 also corroborated that complainant took loan of Rs.5,70,000/-.
During argument Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that OP NO.2 performed unfair trade practice so complainant wants to return the tractor and wants to get the money which he already paid in favour of OP NO.1 & 2. But Ld. Advocate for the complainant failed to assign proper reason in support his contention. So, we find no merit in such type of argument. He further argued that OP NO.1 & 2 not yet handed over the papers of the tractor which are required to ply the tractor on the road. No explanation has been given in the W/V of the OP NO.2 as to why he did not provide the papers of the tractor in favour of the complainant. On careful perusal of petition of complaint, we find that complainant did not raise any allegation that OP No.1 & 2 not yet provided the documents of the tractor in his favour. Accordingly, we are unable to issue any such direction upon the OP NO.1 & 2.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion we are of the firmed view that the complainant has failed to establish his grievance before this Commission and accordingly, he is not entitle to any relief as per his prayer.
In the result present case fails.
Hence,
It is
(7)
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP NO.1-3 but without any order as to cost.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties as free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) .................................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
We concur,
........................................ .........................................
MEMBER MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY) (MALLIKA SAMADDAR)
