The case record is posted today for re-hearing. The complainant is absent today and no step is taken on her behalf. On repeated calls, also the complainant remained absent. The Advocate for OP No.4 is present and files hazira. 

                                         In the present case, the OPs No.1 & 4 were appeared and filed their respective written versions. OP No.2 & 3 were set ex parte. It is seen from the case record that the complainant remained absent since 30.06.2020 and did not prosecute her case. On the other hand, Advocates for the contesting Ops urged to dispose of the case on merit. Hence, the order.

                                         Perused the complaint petition. It is stated by the complainant that she, being the President of Maa Mangala SHC of village Raikula under Khaira Block, had purchased a tractor of Shaktiman model 405E for an amount of Rs.3,98,000.00 and a trolley for Rs.75,000.00 and HI Tech of Rs.4,000.00: in total Rs.4,77,000.00 from OP No.3 on behalf of SHC, financed by OP No.1 with recommendation of OP No.3 and under the supervision of OP No.2. The said tractor and trolley was registered bearing No.OR-01J-8391 and 8392 respectively. The first servicing was attended by the OP No.3, but denied to provide any further servicing, for which she approached the Ops, but in vain. For the above acts of the Ops, the tractor went worse day by day and finally it was stopped working, for which the complainant was unable to pay the regular instalments of OP No.1-Bank. Therefore, the aim and goal of the SHG could not be materialized, thereby, SHG have suffered financial loss of Rs.5,00,000.00. Hence, claiming deficiency in service by the Ops, the complainant has presented this case.

                                         Advocate for the OP No.1 vehemently submitted that the present OP has no role to play in the matter and the complainant, with a view to grab the outstanding dues along with interest, has filed the present case with the vexatious grounds. 

                                         Advocate for the OP No.4 has submitted that the tractor in question has not at all suffered any manufacturing defect, because the complainant has stated that the tractor was being used from September, 2006 to December, 2008 and the tractor has already covered the Warranty period of one year. The complainant has not come to this Commission in clean hand, rather suppressed the material facts. Further, the complainant is a President of SHG, an organization with object to earn profit activity, had purchased the tractor and for the purpose of earning livelihood of her family. That apart, it is the OP No.3, who is liable to provide after sales service to its retail customers. It is further contended that the present OP has not received any of the free service coupons nor any installation coupon of the tractor in question nor has received any complaint from him. Further, it is submitted that the present OP has neither any office, branch office nor any authorized dealer or sub-dealer in the district of Balasore. Therefore, it cannot be said that deficiency in service is attributed against the present OP.

                                         Perused the case record. Mainly, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service against the Ops on the grounds that they have not at all listen to his approach regarding maintenance & servicing with regard to the tractor in question which she, being the President of Maa Mangala SHC of village Raikula under Khaira Block, had purchased from OP No.3 on behalf of SHC, financed by OP No.1 with recommendation of OP No.3 and under the supervision of OP No.2. The complainant has further alleged that first servicing was attended by the OP No.3, but denied to provide any further servicing for which she approached the Ops, but in vain. For the above acts of the Ops, the tractor went worse day by day and finally it was stopped working for which the complainant was unable to pay the regular instalments of OP No.1-Bank. Therefore, the aim and goal of the SHG could not be materialized.

                                         The contesting Ops have claimed that the warranty period of the alleged tractor has already been expired. In this regard, the complainant has not claimed that their tractor in question was suffered manufacturing defect within the warranty period. But at the same time, it cannot be said that the alleged tractor cannot be repaired by the OP No.3 even though the warranty period is over. Whatever may be the defects, it is the duty of OP No.3 to provide all kind of service to the alleged tractor either in paid service or otherwise.

                                         To substantiate, her case, the complainant has not submitted any material documents like the retail invoice, quotation, certificate of fitness, registration certificate particulars, goods carriage permit, sanction order of the OP No.1, supply order of OP No.1, delivery order of OP No.3 & warranty manual to prove that their SHG had purchased the tractor in question from OP No.3 being financed by the OP No.1. It is alleged by the complainant that OP No.3 denied to provide second servicing in respect of the tractor in question, but failed to produce the surplus four free servicing coupons to prove that deficiency in service is attributed against the OP No.3. It is further alleged by the complainant that she had approached the Ops several times, but not a single document is produced to establish that she had ever approached the Ops relating to the matter. It is also alleged that due to manufacturing defect, the tractor became idle and did not work, for which their SHG could not able to make payment the installments to the OP No.1-Bank. This Commission is not technically expert to arrive at a conclusion about the nature and manner of defect. In this regard, the complainant should have produced expert evidence from the technically competent agency to show that the tractor in question was actually suffered from manufacturing defect. From the above discussions and in absence of any concrete proof of document, it cannot be said that the tractor in question has suffered any manufacturing defect. Rather, it is established that the complainant, with a view to avoid payment of the outstanding loan amount with interest, filed this false case thereby causing financial loss to the OP No.1-Bank. The complainant has not come to this Commission in clean hand and suppression of the material fact amounts to gross miscarriage of justice. 

                                         Taking into consideration the above discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the complainant is not entitled to get any relief what-so-ever and thus, merits no consideration. 

                                         Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

                                         Inform the parties accordingly.