Orissa

Rayagada

CC/131/2017

Sri Jasti Satya Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

BIO-World Agro Machinery Authorized Dealer - Opp.Party(s)

Sri K.Chakar Pani

08 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 131/ 2017.                                                                              Date.       8 .2. 2018.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                                   President

Sri GadadharaSahu, .                                                      Member.

Smt.  Padmalaya  Mishra,                                             Member

 

Sri Jasti Satya  Prasad, S/O: Jasti Nageswar  Rao, Vill: Antamada, J.K.Pur, PS:Chandili,  Po:Rayagada.    Dist.Rayagada,State:  Odisha.                                                    …….Complainant

Vrs.

The Bio-world Agro Machineries, Dealer for Escorts AGri Machinery Ltd., Tumbiguda Junction,Rayagada.                                                                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                                                               

For the complainant: - Sri K. Chakrapani, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps:- Set  exparte.

                                                                J u d g e m e n t.

                The  present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for non refund of advance amount taken during the course of  purchasing Tractor and  non delivery of  Rotavetor. The brief facts of the case are summarized here  under.

 

       That the complainant had purchased one PT Euro L.M. Tractor from the O.P.  who had given Chaiti offer   an amount of Rs.12,000/- cash or any Electronic goods who  would   book the vehicle before offer  close.   Accordingly  before the offer  the complainant  had booked the above tractor  after payment of Rs. 50,000/- through bank and also the complainant  had paid an advance of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the O.P.  At the time of delivery of the vehicle  the O.P.  had given in writing and put his business seal that one Rotavator  and free offer amount  shall be paid with  in a week,  but  the same was refused to give  nor allowed to complainant  to  speak   any thing  regarding this.     There after completion of one week the complainant had gone to the show room of the O.P. with one  SPRING Cultivator (defective goods)  returned to the O.P. After return  the above parts the O.P. had given in  writing the due amount  a sum of Rs. 28, 843/- shall be refund to the complainant. 

(a)Return goods(Spring Cultivator) defective returned  worth Rs.28,000/-

(b)Add Chaviti  offer                                                        Rs.12,000/-

                                                       Total.             Rs.40,000/-

Less for tractor Registration  charges.                             Rs. 8,000/-

Less First servicing charges                                                 Rs.3,157/-

                                                       Total.             Rs.28,843/-

 

                The complainant  had paid the following amount  towards the  Tractor and the same  are mentioned below.

1. Advance amount  Rs.3,00,000/-
2. Through bank       Rs.5,00,000/-
3. Margin amount    Rs.   56,000/-
4. Paper  processingRs.      5,870/-

 

But till date   the O.P. has not refunded the above due amount Rs.28,843/- to the complainant.  The complainant  has approached from pillar to post to get the amount, but the O.P  paid deaf ear to the above matter. Hence this case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.P. to refund Rs.28,843/- along  with  one  Rotavator  and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.

On being noticed one of the staff of the O.P. appeared and took adjournments.  Further  the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum personally  nor filed their  written version despite availing sufficient opportunity with these   03 adjournments has been given  to them. The learned counsel for the  Complainant consequently filed his memo and praying  to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 4 months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act, 1986 going to be astroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant. Heard the complaint observed that the action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  Lex comitatus as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

The O.Ps should have exercised reasonable care to discharge their duties and in absence of which the complaint is inflicted mental agony and financial loss.

Hence  all the proceedings taken by the O.Ps in his high handedness to the inconvenience of  the complainant defraying  his rights  and remedies under the laws of land  and not valid and unjustified of all the facts  above thus forum is  of the  opinion that the complaint  is to be adequately  compensated as against the O.Ps   

                                                Findings.

During the course of exparte hearing  the complainant  annexed  certain documents such as   Money Receipt No. 3  Rs.3,00,000/- received   by the O.P. from the complainant towards down payment of the above Tractor , Challan issued by the O.P in favour of  the  complainant, Acknowledgement  towards receipt  of  accessories from the O.P.  by the complainant,  Detailed list  given  by the O.P. towards refund of Rs.28,843/- and Rotavator  to the complainant, Account ledger inquiry 2 pages and  Account statement of  the complainant.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the forum  whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps  in not   refunding the amounts a sum of Rs. 28,843/-  to the complainant    as per the  provisions laid down under section 14 of the  C.P. Act.

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the grievances of the complaint which amounts to  deficiency in service  as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the forum claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.P is jointly and severally liable.

On perusal of the Account statement filed by the complainant which is Marked as Annexure-I   it is revealed that  the complainant had availed loan from the  Punjab National Bank, Rayagada  a sum of Rs.5,56,000/-  and the complainant also paid  hard cash Rs.3,00,000/- to the O.P. towards down payment for purchase of above  Tractor in support of payment Money receipt  issued by the O.P which is marked  as Annexure-2.  In the above loan he had availed Govt. subsidy a sum of Rs. 90,000/-. It is admitted fact that the O.P. delivered PT EURO 50 LM (ESCORTS AGRO Machinery)  in  favour of the complainant  on Dt. 15.12.2016  in support of challan issued by the O.P  enclosed  in the file which is marked as Annexure-3.  The O.P. had  given written calculation with seal of the O.P.  which are marked as Annexure-4 where the O.P. clearly mentioned that the Rotavetor  will be supplied to the complainant later. Non responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that the  O.P.   is  jointly and severally liable.

            Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

       In  resultant  the complaint petition is  hereby  allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps

                The O.P. is   ordered to delivery  Rotavator  and refund  amount a sum of Rs.28,843/-which was received from the complainant  inter alia Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony  and cost of litigation  to the complainant.  

            We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.Ps. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

                The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order. Service the copies of the order to the parties free of  cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.  Pronounced on this   8th. day of   February, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                                MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT.