DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 16th day of November, 2017
C.D.Case No. 06 of 2015
Sri Anil Puhan
S/o: Niranjan Puhan
At: Bayanbanapur
Po/Ps: Bhandaripokhari
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. General Manager, Indo Farm Industries
Export Promotion Industrial Park, Phase-II
Po: Baddi
Dist: Salon
Himachal Pradesh
Pin: 173205
2. M/S Kalpana Motors
At: Khandia Bazar
Po: Charampa
Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
3. Manager, Punjab & Sindh bank
Charampa Branch
At/Po: Charampa
Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri S. P Mohanty
For the O.Ps No. 1 & 2: Sri G. Nath & Others
For the op No. 3: Sri R. K. Ray & Others
Date of hearing : 17.07.2017
Date of order : 16.11.2017
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR,PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them against the complainant are to the effect that, the OP No. 1 is the manufacturer, the OP no. 2 is the dealer under the OP No. 1, the OP no. 3 is the banker who has financed the complainant to avail the tractor.
On 27th December 2013 the complainant purchased one INDO FARM made model Tractor No. as 2042 DI along with the Trailer from OP No. 2 by availing an agriculture loan of Rs 6,00,000/- from OP No. 3. The complainant got the Tractor and its Trailer registered before the Registering Authorities Bhadrak. Vide Regd. No. OD-22A-7787 in respect of Tractor and OD-22A-7788 in respect of the Trailer. After about 7 days of running the complainant found that the said Tractor lacked punch and delivering less power as specified in the manual. The Tractor is unable to lift out from the sand quarry due to paucity of power. The said Tractor also failed many times when with load to grade heights. These defects have been repeatedly informed to OP No. 2 during maintenance and service. Further, the OP No. 2 has supplied a defective Trailer for which the shaft bearing seared for innumerable times. The complainant sustained huge financial loss. But despite repeated intimation OP no. 2 did not take any steps to rectify the problem or to replace the Tractor. Finding no other way the complainant wrote letter and sent it through registered post to all these O.Ps on 05/04/2014. All these O.Ps received the letter revealing about the manufacturing defects of Tractor and the Trailer but none of them shown my concern for rectification of the problem. The complainant finding no other way approached the OP No. 3 for redressal of his problems as OP No. 3 is the person who has persuaded him to take the Tractor & Trailer from OP No. 1 & 2. But OP No. 3 did not take any steps though gave some false assurance. The complainant tried to pay the vehicle with the same condition but as many 5 times within a span of one month the bearing of the Trailer seared and the Tractor became unserviceable. At present since April 2004 the Tractor is standing and the premises of the complainant. As the complainant has s lost his income due to the deficiency of service of the O.Ps. Hence he has sought for the relief as follows:-
1. The O.Ps be directed to pay Rs 1,10,000/- to the complainant for his loss of business.
2. The O.Ps be directed to refund Rs 24,000/- to the complainant towards repairing & spear sprats.
3. Rs 15,000/- be awarded for mental agony & harassment.
4. Rs 10,000/- be awarded for cost of the litigation.
The complainant has filed Xerox copies of some documents such as follows:-
i. Certificate of Registration vIde No. OD-22A-7788. 1 sheet
ii. Certificate of Registration vIde No. OD-22A-7787. 1 sheet
iii. Form receipt of fees vide No. AB6127345. 1sheet
iv. Form receipt of fees vide No. AB6127345. 1sheet
v. Personal description. 1 sheet
vi. Policy schedule of Royal Sundaram. 1 sheet
vii. Insurance declared value. 1 sheet
viii. Quotation of M/S Kalpana Motors. 1 sheet (TIN No. 21703900711)
ix. Certificate of fitness- FA01377066. 1 sheet
x. Certificate of fitness- FA01377067. 1 sheet
xi. Copy of the representation. 2 sheets
xii. Statements of account. 4 sheets
xiii. Operator & Service Manual. 1 sheet
xiv. Date of sale. 1 sheet
xv. Personal description. 1 sheet
xvi. Cash memo. 5 sheets
xvii. Money receipt. 1 sheet
xviii. R.T.O registration certificate vide No. RA03413946. 1 sheet
xix. R.T.O registration certificate vide No. RA03413941. 1 sheet
xx. Photo ID card of the complainant. 1 sheet
xxi. Goods carriage permits. 2 sheets
xxii. Application of the post master Bhandaripokhari. 1 sheet
On the other hand the written version filed on behalf of the OP No. 1 & OP No.2 Such as follows:-
1. The O.Ps have challenged the maintainability of this case.
2. The O.Ps have stated that the averments of this complaint is vague, concocted & baseless & prayed for dismissal of this case.
3. The O.Ps have denied the allegations made against them in the para No. 3, 4, 5 & 6 & para No. 7 of this complaint.
4. The O.Ps have stated the facts that the complainant is habitual defaulter of the borrower.
5. The complainant had approached the OP No. 3 Bank offered proposal to OP No. 2 for purchasing a Tractor of Indo Farm brand at the retail house at charampa. He inspected the Tractor through an experience driver. He also verified & scrutinized the operating system & service manual of different models. After being satisfied the engine system major in gauges, fuel control livers, electrical controls etc., maintenance headings, technical data’s, operating & adjustment system with regard to engine lubrication system, timing system, fuel system etc. The complainant became satisfied with all the system of the Tractor in show room of the OP No. 2. The complainant purchased the Indo Farm Tractor of model No. 2012 on 27.12.2013 & took delivery of possession of the said Tractor. The complainant used the Tractor & got free service on 18.02.2014 & 21.03.2014. The complainant consulted with OP No. 2 regarding waive out of back dues of financing Bank who is OP No. 3. The O.Ps advised to the complainant to pay the Bank installments as he was earning a lot from the said Tractor, but the complainant became complete heed less to the advice & did not repay the loan amounts. On 01.04.2014 the complainant issued to this OP No. 2 that Tractor as well as the trailer showed defect. He has also alleged the O.Ps have received Rs 60,000/- towards original value to the Tractor. He has also spent Rs 20,000/- towards repairing the Tractor, for which he could not pay the EMI of the Bank in time.
6. The OP No. 1 & 2 have further stated that the complainant has got outstanding dues to the tune of Rs 70,000/- which he had under taken to pay by the end of January-2014. The complainant got financed from the OP No. 3 to the tune of Rs 6,000,00/- & the cost of the Tractor was Rs 7,99,312/-. So out of the differential amount to the tune of Rs 1,99,312/-. The complainant paid Rs 1,29,312/- & assured to pay the amount Rs 70,000/- to the OP No. 2. The complainant took time many times for the payment of Rs 70,000/- . The complainant could not pay the amount till 31.03.2014 & sent a legal notice against the O.Ps to avoid the payment. The complainant also refuted the compromise suggested by the O.Ps. Hence both OP No. 1 & 2 have prayed for the dismissal of this complaint.
The OP No. 3 has also filed his written version the challenging the cause of action, maintainability & truthfulness of the complaint. He has also challenged that the present case has no deficiency of service against the OP No. 3. He has also challenged the limitation. He has further denied that the allegations made against the OP No. 3 are false, frivolous & concoctive. The fact of the defence of OP No. 3 had been described by him that the petitioner has applied for term agriculture loan for purchase of Tractor and accordingly the OP No. 3 Bank after verifying the genuine documents of petitioner, the OP No. 3 Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs 6,00,000/- (Six Lakhs). Accordingly the petitioner executed an agreement with Bank. The complainant filed a quotation to purchase Tractor from OP No. 1 & 2 and requested to OP No. 3 to issue draft in favour of OP No. 2. Accordingly after receipt of request letter and quotation from petitioner, the OP No. 3 Bank issued draft in favour of OP No. 2. That the petitioner after receiving Tractor and other materials, deposited the money receipt & delivery receipt to the OP No. 3 Bank. So the OP No. 3 has no role that the petitioner faced mechanical trouble in the said Tractor. That, the OP No. 3 has no committed any wrong or deficiency in service towards the petitioner and petitioner is not entitled to get any compensation from OP No. 3 Bank & petitioner has not sustained any mental agony or loss due to the negligence of OP No. 3 Bank.
The OP No. 1, 2 & 3 have not filed any relevant document to support their stands.
ORSEVATION
We have already gone through the complaint, the documents filed by the complainant & the written versions of all the O.Ps. It is alleged that the complainant purchased one Tractor & Trailer which had been suffering from manufacturing defects, from the OP No. 1 through his dealer OP No. 2. The OP No. 3 financed the complainant to get the Tractor the complainant purchased one Indo Farm made Model named as 2042 DI along with the Trailer from OP No. 2 by availing an agriculture loan of Rs 6,00,000/- from the OP No. 3. Both the Tractor & the Trailer were registered before the registering authorities, Bhadrak vide Regd. No. OD-22A-7787 in respect of the Tractor & OD-22A-7788 in respect of the Trailer. The complainant found that after about 7 days of running the complainant found that the said Tractor lacks punch and delivering less power as specified in the manual. The Tractor is unable to lift itself out from the sand quarry due to paucity of power. The said Tractor also failed many times when with load to grade heights. These defects have been repeatedly informed to OP No. 2 during maintenance and service but the OP No. 1 & 2 have never turned up. According to the OP No. 1 & 2 the complainant has got outstanding dues to the tune of Rs 70,000/- which had been under taken to pay by the end of January, 2014 the complainant availed to loan Rs 6,00,000/- & the cost of the Tractor was Rs 7,99,342/- so out of the deferential amount the complainant has paid Rs 1,29,312/-. It is a matter of regret that the OP No. 1 & 2 have not whispered a single sentence about the manufacturing defect of the Tractor & the Trailer. The vehicle became inoperative & inactive to run after seven days purchasing of the same. Although the complainant has informed to the OP No. 1 & 2 several times regarding the manufacturing defect of the said vehicle but the O.Ps were turned deaf towards the request of the complainant. O.Ps have described regarding the loan matter in their written version. The facts stated in their written version are not the subject matter of this case. On the other hand the O.P No. 1 & 2 have described in respect of the financial matter in their written version only. Hence they have caused obviously deficiency of service towards the complainant. The O.P No. 3 is exempted from the same. We find the drawbacks of the OP No. 1 & 2 is that they have not filed a single scrap of paper in support of them. So the OP No. 1 & 2 have failed to prove their case. The deficiency of service caused by the O.P No. 1 & 2 is clearly made out. The O.P No. 1 & 2 has to pay Rs 1,10,000/- to the complainant as his loss of business but as the complainant has to pay Rs 70,000/- to the O.P No. 2 as outstanding amount upon him, hence the O.P No. 2 shall have to deduct the said amount from the amount of Rs 1,10,000/-. As the complainant did not try to avail the free service, so he is not entitled to the cost of the repairing & spare parts. Hence it is ordered;
-
The complaint is and the same be allowed on part. The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs 40,000/- as the loss of business, Rs 5,000/- for mental agony & harassment & Rs 1,000/- for cost of the litigation, to the complainant within 30 days on receipt of this order.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 16th November, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
President
(Sri Basanta Kumar Mallick)
Member
Typed to my dictation & corrected by me
(Sri Raghunath Kar)
(Apsara Begam) President
Member
