DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                     C.C.NO.18 OF 2016

Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra           - President.

                 Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik   -  Member .

                  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy       - Member .

Sri Susanta Kumar Mohanty, aged 49 years

S/O: Late Braja Kishore Mohanty, Village/PO: Peonpada, Phulbani

PS: Phulbani Town. Dist: Kandhamal.                                                         ……………………….. Complainant.

                                Versus.

1. Branch Manager,

M/S- Phalguni Motors Authorised Sales, Service and spares

Of Sanalika International Tractors Ltd. At/PO: Main Road, Phulbani

PS: Phulbani Town, Dist; Kandhamal.

2. Proprietor, M/S Phalguni Motors

At/Po/PS: Baliguda Dist: Kandhamal.

3. Chairman, Sonalika Internati0nal Tractors Ltd.

At/Po: Gaon Chowk, gujaran, Jalandhar Road,

Dist: Husiarpur, STATE- Punjab.                                             …………………………….. OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Self.

For the OPP. Parties: For the O.P No.1 and .2: Sri Samarendra Pattanaik, Advocate, Phulbani

                                          For the O.P No.3: Sri M.R Mohanty, Advocate Phulbani and his Associates

Date of Order: 19-01-2017

                                                                                                  O R D E R

                                                   The case of the Complainant in brief  is that The O.P No.2 is the Proprietor of M/S Phalguni Motors who is authorized to sale and to provide services of Sonalika Tractors and has a Branch Office at Main road of Phulbani . The Complainant purchased one Tractor bearing Model No- D1740 through bank Finance on 30-05-2015 for Rs. 5,60,000/- from O.P No.2 through his branch office at Phulbani. Full payment was made in shape of Bank Draft in favor of M/S Phalguni Motors ,Balliguda of the District Kandhamal. As per the norms of the company the period of warranty was one year or

                                                                                                          -2-

1500 hour running of the tractor whichever is earlier but the Tractor was running only 400 hours during last five months. After delivery of the tractor some manufacturing defects raised, for which he lodged the complain before O.P No.2 several times but no steps were taken by them. He is maintaining his livelihood from the tractor business and he has no other source of income to maintain his family and unable to maintain the tractor and also unable to repay the loan installment in time. He suffered serious financial loss and mental agony due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.ps. Hence, he has filed this complaint for replacement and claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony.

                                                The case of the O.P No.1 and 2 is that the O.P. No.2 is not   the Proprietor of M/S Phalguni Motors but he carries in business transaction like sale and services of Sonalika tractors, The Complainant is not a Consumer and is not entitled to get any relief as claimed .

                                                The case of O.P No.3 as per his version is that the Complainant is not a Consumer and the Hon’ble forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The Complaint is not maintainable as the tractor is used for commercial purpose and it is only the Civil Court who can determine this dispute as claimed. That the relationship between O.P No.3 and its dealers on principal to principal basis. The tractors are sent to the dealers on payment basis as and when order is received from any dealer. So, the Company is not any way liable towards the customers of the dealer but in case of manufacturer defect in the tractor parts, the same should be within warranty period, then the company will replace that part through its dealer. The service is provided to the customer through the dealers or authorized service centers.

                                                The further case of the O.P No.3 is that the O.P No.2 is the Proprietor of Phalguni Motors. There was no defect in the tractor and no complain was received by O.P No.3 in this regard. The Sonalika brand is most trusted brand in India as well as abroad. The Complaint is barred for non joinder of necessary parties .So, the complaint may be dismissed with cost.

                                                During course of hearing we have heard the Complainant, the O.P No.1 & 2 and  learned Advocates of the Parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the version filed by the O.ps separately and the documents available in the record.

                                                It is alleged by the O.Ps that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the Complainant is not a Consumer and it is only the Civil court who can determine the disputes. As per section 11(2) (c) of C.P Act a Complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdictions the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

                                                It is admitted fact that the Complainant has purchased One Sonalika Tractor from M/S Phalguni Motors Main Road of Phulbani of the District of the Kandhamal. So, the cause of action arised under the jurisdiction of the District forum of Phulbani.

                                                                                                            -3-

                                                As the Complainant has purchased the tractor from the O.Ps he is a Consumer under the Purview of Section 2(d)(1) of C.P Act. It is settled principle of law is that Consumer Fora is an alternative Forum established under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to discharge functions of a Civil court. So, the allegations of the O.Ps have no leg to stand.

                                                  It is seen from the record that one Bhagaban Nayak is the proprietor of M/S Phalguni Motors Main Road Phulbani, from whom the Complainant has purchased a Sonalike Tractor on 30-12-2015 for Rs. 5, 60,000/-. It is also seen from the quotation that he is representing M/S Phalguni Motors, Balliguda as it’s proprietor also. This complaint was filed on 02-05-2016 during the period of Warranty. The Complainant has not clearly proved regarding the manufacturing defect of the tractor. However Bhagaban Nayak is the Proprietor of M/S Phalguni Motors as admitted by O.P No.3 in his version that the O.P no.2 is the Proprietor of Phalguni Motors. It reveals from the record that Bhagaban Nayak was representing both the Branch of M/S Phalguni Motors at Phulbani and Balliguda, the O.P No.1 &2. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part against the O.P No.1 & 2, as no action was taken by O.P No.2 in spite of repeated complain of the Complainant regarding the defect of his tractor.

                                                Sri Bhagaban Nayak as the Proprietor of M/S Phalguni Motors, who is representing the O.P No.1 & 2 in this case is directed to repair the tractor bearing Model No.D1740 of the Complainant free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure the Complainant shall be entitled to get compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the Proprietor M/S Phalguni Motors (O.P No.1 & 2).

                                                With the above direction, the C.C is disposed of .Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date

               MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT