DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 26th day of June, 2020
C.D Case No. 62 of 2017
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Priyadeep Ranjan Baliarsingh Jena
S/o Binod Bihari Jena
Vill/Po: Akhuapada,
Ps: Bhandaripokhari,
Dist: Bhadrak, Odisha
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Branch Manager of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.,
Jajpur Branch, At: Mallik Complex, 1st Floor, Near Ganesh Pendal, Panikoili, Po/Ps: Panikoili,
Dist: Jajpur- 755043
2. Manager of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. Corporate Office
At: 2nd Floor, Sadhana House- 570 P.B Marg Eorli Mumbai- 400018,
Maharastra
3. Owner of Vikrant Motors (Authorized dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra Tractors)
At/Po/Via: Chandikhol,
Dist: Jajpur
4. Bishnu Boitei
S/o Suryamani Boitei
At: Raghunathpur,
Po: Bankamuhan,
Ps/Via: Bhandaripokhari,
Dist: Bhadrak
5. Branch Manager of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Service Ltd.
At: 1st Floor of R.C Behera Mansion, Salandi Bypass,
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
……………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri N. Sahu, Adv
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 1, 2 & 5: Sri B. K. Tripathy Adv. & Associates
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 3: Sri M. A. Khan Adv. & Others
Counsel For the O.Ps No. 4: Set Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 04.09.2019
Date of order: 26.06.2020
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
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 case as narrated in the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is an un-employed youth who intended to acquire a tractor with the credit support of OP No. 1 under the instigation of OP No. 4 who acts as an agent of OP No. 3. On 04.02.2016 the complainant contacted personally to OP No. 3 and evinced his interest to purchase a tractor where OP No. 3 (Authorized dealer of Mahindra Tractor) and the staff present there disclosed that the prevailing price of Mahindra 475 D-1 model tractor is Rs 7,30,000/- and the cost of the trailer is Rs 1,20,000/- total of which comes to Rs 8,50,000/-. Simultaneously OP No. 3 also promised to reduce up to Rs 1,00,000/- as company subsidy out of the total price of tractor including trailer. Having heard the prevailing price of the tractor, the complainant expressed his inability to arrange such a big amount and requested OP No. 3 to arrange finance from any financial institution. Immediately OP No. 3 contacted OP No. 1 over phone who arrived at the dealer’s point and agreed to provide credit support to the tune of Rs 5,00,000/- and the residual amount is to be paid by the complainant. Accordingly the complainant arranged the differential amount and paid the same to OP No. 1 & 3 on a condition that the subsidy available for him will be deducted from loan amount of Rs 5,00,000/- which was agreed by OP No. 1 & 3. Subsequently OP No. 1 sanctioned the loan after execution of required documents and on receipt of blank signed cheques drawn on SBI Panikoili Branch from the complainant. After completion of all formalities OP No. 3 handed over a tax invoice with a commitment to deliver the tractor on the next day but did not handover the registration and insurance papers to the complainant. When asked, OP No. 3 informed the complainant to make the papers available to the complainant as it would take not less than a week to get the insurance and registration papers. Soon after expire a week the complainant physically contacted OP No. 1, 3 & 4 to handover the registration papers but the said O.Ps took different plea and delayed handing over the papers as a result of which the complainant did not engage the tractor to work in field. In this manner the O.Ps inordinately delayed for more than a year to handover the registration papers which resulted the tractor stood idle for a period of more than one year and failed to generate any income. Finally OP No. 1 & 3 handed over the documents on 08.04.2017 as against the vehicle delivered on 19.02.2016. During this period of one year and two months the tractor which was acquired on loan could not move for which the complainant sustained huge financial loss because of the negligence of OP No. 1, 3 & 4. The subsidy of Rs 1,00,000/- the complainant was entitled, could not be adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. However even if the vehicle was standing idle, the complainant went on paying the loan installments according to his capability to the credit of his loan account till 10.03.2017. The complainant requested OP No. 1 for deduction of subsidy amount from the loan account, but the said OP replied to adjust the subsidy amount on future dates which is not yet done. Subsequently on 18.08.2017, OP No. 1 demanded the complainant to pay Rs 60,750/- to the credit of the loan account failing which the tractor would be repossessed by the O.Ps. That apart the O.Ps have not yet adjusted the subsidy amount till yet as a result of which the poor complainant is suffering from financial burden and also mental agony. When the O.Ps did not respond to the persistent requests of the complainant, finding no other way the complainant took shelter in the present Forum and filed a case praying for relaxation of financial burden illegally imposed by the O.Ps along with cost and compensation.
The O.Ps, represented through their Asst. Manager Legal, resisted the allegations of the complainant and contested the case. In the written version O.Ps (OP No. 1, 2 & 5) have raised the question of maintainability on the ground that there is no deficiency of service nor the O.Ps have caused any negligence to provide proper service to the complainant. The answering O.Ps have admitted to have sanctioned a sum of Rs 4,80,000/- on the request of the complainant for acquisition of the tractor of his choice “MAHINDRA 475 NST SARPANCH TRACTOR” according to the quotation submitted by him. The vehicle bearing Engine No. NJGH02664 has been registered with RTO Chandikhole having registration No. OD 04J 6870. The O.Ps have further stated that they have no role to play in selection of dealer and model of the vehicle. According to the terms of agreement the complainant had to repay the loan amount in 46 equated monthly installments @ Rs 15,350/- per month starting from 10th April 2016 covering the amount of Rs 7,06,100/- which includes the interest cost and other costs. The said loan was disbursed after execution of all relevant documents including loan agreement and hypothecation and whatever action has been initiated subsequent to the disbursal was according to the agreed terms and conditions. The complainant, after availing the loan, has paid only 11 Equated Monthly Installments (EMI) out of 46 installments as a result of which the entire amount of loan outstanding became overdue and whatever conditions have been stipulated in the loan agreement to treat the defaulter in the event of failure in repayment of loan installments and accordingly the O.Ps have time and again met and insisted upon the complainant to repay the loan in a regular manner and to clear up all arrear dues. Further O.Ps have stated that they have not received any amount from the complainant towards registration and insurance fees to get the same done for the complainant. It is further stated that in the event of failure in repayment and mounting of arrear dues, the O.Ps have no other option except acting upon the terms of the agreement. Finally O.Ps have denied other allegations with regards to subsidy, made in the complaint and stated that the said complaint does not bear any merit against the answering O.Ps for which the case is liable to be dismissed.
OP No. 3 strongly resisted the allegation in the complaint and contested the case. In the written version the said OP raised the question of maintainability as there is no deficiency of service provided by the answering OP. It is further submitted that the answering OP has not received any amount from the complainant for the purpose of registering the vehicle with the RTO Chandikhole nor taken responsibility of insuring the vehicle. All the allegations made in the complaint are all fake and fabricated as the complainant has lodged the allegation on some false grounds. It is also stated in written version that the answering OP has made over the invoice/challan to the complainant on dt. 18.02.2016 and left the responsibility on the complainant for registration & insurance of the vehicle. Further OP No. 3 remained silent on the matter of subsidy which was committed to be deducted from the loan amount. In the above premises it is crystal clear that the complainant has made an imaginary story to avoid to repayment of loan on false ground. As such this complaint does not bear any merit and liable to be dismissed. OP No. 4, even if received notice from the Forum, did not appear before the Forum nor submitted any written version and therefore the said OP is set ex-parte due to default.
Gone through the complaint of the complainant, written versions filed by the O.Ps, heard the parties to this case during hearing and observed the following important points for discussion in order to pass the final order.
1. The complainant, during hearing, submitted that the O.Ps No. 1, 2, 4 & 5 have abnormally delayed in handing over the registration and insurance paper as a result of which the vehicle acquired on loan could not ply on road nor engaged at work for generating income. As the vehicle stood idle for a period of more than one year, the complainant failed to yield any income out of the investment made as a result of which he could not repay the loan installments as per EMI fixed. The complainant, in many times, has sincerely requested to O.Ps No. 2, 3 & 5 for supply of registration paper but none of them responded to his grievance rather remained silent over a period of one year or more. Therefore it is justified to exempt the interest on the loan provided by OP No. 1, 2 & 5 as they have grossly neglected in performing their legitimate duties with due diligence. Simultaneously OP No. 3, even though received a sum of Rs 1,00,000/- for registration and insurance failed to hand over the same within a period of one year. On the contrary OP No. 1, 2 & 5 strongly argued that they being the financier do have the responsibility of releasing the loan promptly and the ensure supply of vehicle by the dealer concerned soon after receipt of the demand draft/cash towards cost of the vehicle. O.Ps are not responsible how to register and insure the vehicle. It is responsibility of the dealer and the complainant to get the vehicle registered and insured before the vehicle is put on road. Simultaneously OP No. 3, the dealer of the tractor, argued in stating that the said vehicle was delivered to the complainant on 18.02.2016 along with the tax invoice and challan. It is the responsibility of the complainant to get his vehicle registered and insured. As counter argument the complainant stated that according to the provisions of Odisha Motor Transport Act it is the responsibility of the supplier/dealer to get the vehicle registered and insured before giving delivery of the tractor. Accordingly OP No. 3 calculated and demanded the amount of Rs 1,00,000/- for accomplishing the paper work which was complied by the complainant instantly on payment of the demanded amount. The inordinate delay caused by OP No. 3 in getting the papers works done within a week as per commitment compelled the complainant not to utilize the vehicle at work and failed to get any income. It is also the prime responsibility of the financier (OP No. 1, 2 & 5) to see if the vehicle is registered and insured for the reason that it is mandatory to get the vehicle hypothecated in their favour for completion of documentation. When the financier did not get the required papers to maintain their record, they should have enquired the cause of delay in submission of relevant papers and should have reminded the supplier/dealer (OP No. 3) for submission of papers. Instated of discharging their legitimate duties, the financier remained silent and even did not take any step to hand over the registration papers to the complainant despite repeated verbal requests of the complainant. Such acts of both financer and supplier of the vehicle amount to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and also liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.
Heard the parties to this case and perused the materials on record. The tax invoice/challan issued by VIKRANT MOTORS (OP No. 3) discloses that the vehicle was delivered on 18.02.2016 where as the registration certificate issued by the registering authority, Chandikhole reveals that the vehicle has been registered on 06.04.2017 after a period of one year and two months. It is mandatory that the supplier of the vehicle shall submit a copy of the invoice, duplicate ignition key along with registration and insurance papers to the financier within a week which is not done in the present case. Secondly the financier of the loan are found slept over the matter for a period more than one year and did not enquire about inordinate delay in submission of the mentioned paper which proves their gross negligence in performing their duties as a result of which the poor complainant sustained huge loss. It is, therefore, concluded that both the financier and supplier of the vehicle are having nexus to deceive the poor complainant for which both of them are liable to augment the loss sustained by the complainant.
2. The complainant submitted that OP No. 4 has taken two numbers of signed blank cheques from the complainant with a commitment the said cheques would be returned after registration of vehicle but did not returned the cheques inspite of repeated requests. The said OP even did not prefer to appear before the Forum nor submitted any written version and therefore he was set ex-parte. In our opinion the OP No. 4 has taken those cheques with ulterior motive and the complainant apprehends misuse of those cheques. Hence the said OP is bound to return the cheques soon after receipt of the order.
In view of the above analysis and taking the facts and figures into consideration, this Forum arrives at the conclusion that OP No. 1, 2 & 5 and 3 are responsible for suffering of the complainant and also liable to augment the loss.
ORDER
In the result, the complaint be and the same is allowed against the O.Ps with cost and compensation. The OP No. 3 is directed to pay the interest accrued on loan during the period from 18.02.2016 to 07.04.2017 to OP No. 1, 2 & 5 along with subsidy amount of Rs 1,00,000/- to be credited to the loan account of the complainant and the financing authority that is OP No. 2 & 5 are also directed to exempt the interest and other cost imposed/levied on the complainant for the said period. OP No. 3 is also directed to pay compensation of Rs 10,000/- and cost of litigation of Rs 3,000/- to the complainant along with the interest charges. OP No. 1, 2 & 5 are also directed to pay compensation of Rs 10,000/- to the complainant in addition to exemption of interest and other cost. OP No. 4 is directed to return back two numbers of blank signed cheques to the complainant immediately soon after receipt of the order. This order must be complied the O.Ps within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 26th June, 2020 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
