Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/478/2017

PRABH DAYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAMMU MOTOR COPERATION - Opp.Party(s)

AM KHAN

27 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,JAMMU

      (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                          .

 Case File  No                96/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution      19-05-2012

 Date of Decision      :   31-07-2018

 

Prabh Dayal,

S/O Sh.Dharam Chand,

R/O Village  Kapurpur P.O9.Suchetgarh,

Tehsil R.S.Pura,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                 V/S

1.Jammu Motor Corporation,

Authorised dealers,I&T,

John Deere Pvt.Ltd.For Jammu Province,

H.O.National Highway Opp.Dashmesh Nagar,

Digiana,Jammu.

2.State Financial Corporation, through its Managing Director,

  Railway Head Complex, Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)  President

                  Ms.Vijay Angral                                                                 Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                           Member

 

In the matter of Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer Protection Act 1987.

                                                     

Mr.A.M.Khan,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.N.P.Kotwal,Advocate for OP1,present.

Nemo for OP2.

 

                       

                                                                               ORDER

                      Facts relevant for the disposal of complaint on hand are that  Manager Loans of Jammu and Kashmir Financial Corporation and one Ghulam Rashid Goni(Clerk)lured the complainant to apply for loan for purchase of tractor as the complainant is farmer by profession as the tractor will be of great use and beneficial. According to complainant,OP2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,29,807.70 excluding VAT @ 4% which amount comes to Rs.4,47,000/vide bill No.162 dated 01-08-2006(copy of bill is annexed as Annexure-C1 and OP1 issued tractor in favour of complainant against loan amount sanctioned by OP2.It is further submitted that OP1 delivered the tractor with tool kit, top link, Gun Grease,R/Hook, Front Bumper, Hood weight bearing engine No.P43029D142938 and Chasis No.P45103b012312,however,OP1 was required to issue Hydraulic Trolley,Tiller,Thresher and a harrow set of 7x7 disc which are the main parts of the tractor, but were not issued on the pretext that the abovesaid items were not available with the OP1 and promised that these will also be issued as and when available with OP2.According to complainant the cost so received by OP1 also includes the abovesaid parts which have not been issued despite several repeated requests. That as per submissions made the OP2 should marginally reduce the principal amount which also includes cost of items not issued by OP1 to him. In this view of the matter the complainant is not required to pay interest on the principal amount which has been sanctioned in his favour and a penalty should be levied on OP1 who has been put to miserable conditions and complainant is not liable to pay interest on the principle amount for the accessories not issued to him by OP1.That the complainant has paid the instalments of Rs.3,90,000/towards liquidation of loan amount sanctioned by OP2 ,the break up of which is as under

Sr.No.       Date                       Amount                                Remarks

  1.      31-07-2006          1,59,000/-                               Total Loan Rs.4,47,000/-
  2.      27-11-2006              12,000/-
  3.     25-05-2007                 2,000/-
  4.     08-06-2007               10,000/-
  5.     12-07-2007               50,000/-
  6.     26-07-2007                      700/-
  7.     11-09-2007                30,000/-
  8.     18-12-2007                20,000/-
  9.      09-02-2008               40,000/-
  10.      05-02-2010                 1,2000

Fixed Deposit Certificate     66,000/-

Total amount so deposited  3,90,000/-

Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prayed that OPs are directed to pay Rs.2.50 lacs as compensation  for causing mental torture, agony and for providing deficiency in service  and in addition OP2 may be directed to reduce marginally the loan amount and interest thereof .

       On the other hand,OP1 filed written version and resisted the complaint on the ground that complainant has no cause of action against answering OP.The complainant has not disclosed any deficiency of service by OP1.That the complaint is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant has approached this Forum with malafide intention only to put a pressure on OP not to claim the amount which is due to answering OP from complainant. The OP1 further submitted that cheque was sent to OP1 by OP2 as cost of tractor. The OP1 admitted that the tractor was delivered in favour of complainant alongwith all attached accessories, the details of which are given in the complaint itself. It is however denied that OP did not issue the items as hydraulic trolly,tiller,thrasher and a harrow set of 7x7 disc.In this regard it is submitted that these items were issued in favour of complainant vide bill No.150 dated 01-08-2006 for an amount of Rs.1,87,000/-which amount was paid by OP2 .The bill was acknowledged by the complainant who has put his signatures on bill in lieu of receipt of items. The Op1 further submitted that there is no question of cheating or defrauding the complainant as all items connected with tractor or its functioning has been issued in favour of complainant and complainant slept over the matter for six years and kept on using the tractor throughout this period. Rest of the contents of complaint are denied.

             Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavit and affidavits of Krishan Singh,Rattan Lal,Gurdas and Satnam Singh,respectively.Complainant has placed on record copy of invoice.

                 On the other hand,OP1 adduced evidence by way of duly sworn evidence affidavits of Naresh Gupta Managing Director Jammu Motor Corporation and Balbir Singh Partner Director Jammu Motor Corporation,respectively.OP1 has placed on record copy of bill/cash memo.

           We have perused case file and heard L/Cs for the parties at length.

                 Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that OP2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,29,807.70 excluding VAT @ 4% which amount comes to Rs.4,47,000/-vide bill No.162 dated 01-08-2006 OP1 issued tractor in favour of complainant against loan amount sanctioned by OP2.It is further submitted that OP1 delivered the tractor with tool kit, top link, Gun Grease,R/Hook, Front Bumper, Hood weight bearing engine No.P43029D142938 and Chasis No.P45103b012312,however,OP1 was required to issue Hydraulic Trolley,Tiller,Thresher and a harrow set of 7x7 disc which are the main parts of the tractor, but were not issued on the pretext that the abovesaid items were not available with the OP1 and promised that these will also be issued as and when available with OP2.According to complainant the cost so received by OP1 also includes the abovesaid parts which have not been issued despite several repeated requests. That as per submissions made the OP2 should marginally reduce the principal amount which also includes cost of items not issued by OP1 to him. In this view of the matter the complainant is not required to pay interest on the principal amount which has been sanctioned in his favour and a penalty should be levied on OP1 who has been put to miserable conditions and complainant is not liable to pay interest on the principle amount for the accessories not issued to him by OP1.That the complainant has paid the instalments of Rs.3,90,000/-towards liquidation of loan amount sanctioned by OP2.

           On the other hand,stand of OP1 is that the tractor was delivered in favour of complainant alongwith all attached accessories .The OP1 further submitted that these items were issued in favour of complainant vide bill  No.150 dated 01-08-2006 for an amount of Rs.1,87,000/-,which amount was paid by OP2.The bill was acknowledged by complainant who has put his signatures on bill in lieu of receipt of items. Further stand of OP1 is that complaint is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed.

                        Before heading further, it is to be noted that since parties have lead evidence in the shape of evidence affidavits, which are much or less reproduction of contents of their respective pleadings, therefore, we do not feel it necessary to represent the same again and if need arises, same would be referred hereinafter at appropriate stage.

               On the other hand, according to Ops, complaint is not maintainable because it involves disputed questions of fact and law which cannot be gone into while exercising the jurisdiction under Consumer Protection Act. According to OP1,it had provided all the material to complainant including hydraulic trolly,tiller,thrasher and a harrow set which is evident from the receipt issued to complainant.  

                          Apart from this legal discussion otherwise also while seeing to the text and form of the grievance as aired in this complaint, it involves complicated question of law and fact which certainly would require an exhaustive and detailed inquest in the case rather to deal with these grievance in a summary prescribed manner under the Act. The Act is a social legislation meant strictly to deal with the cases of consumer in a summary prescribed manner so to render timely and effective remedial course of justice in a time frame manner rather to hold detailed and roving enquiry by this Forum.

                         To lend support in the case reliance can be placed on the judgment of  National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,New Delhi in case titled Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd.and others V/S Canbank Mutual Fund and another reported in 2002(1)CLT 113,wherein it has been held as:

       Consumer Protection Act,1986 ,Section 12-Complex issue of law and fact-Complaint filed claiming damages worth Rs.4.68 crores with interest @ 18%-Held that the complaint raises various complex issues both of law and facts-There are numerous documents which have to be proved to sustain the claim made in the complaint-Such type of complaint requires tremendous amount of time for recording evidence and hearing arguments-The Commission has to decide a complaint within a set time schedule and exercises summary jurisdiction .the complaint is not fit to be entertained-Complaint dismissed and complainant left to seek his remedy before appropriate Forum.

                          In view of these settled legal position and all what has been stated here to fore this forum is of the considered view that there appears no legal force and substance in the argument and also in the grounds as stated in the complaints by the complainant to seek redressal of the grievance, accordingly the present complaint being devoid of legal force merits dismissal.

In the back drop of both these facts and circumstances, this Forum is of the considered view that there is no force in the complaint and the same is dismissed with a liberty to approach appropriate Forum, if he so advised. Copy of this order be provided to the parties free of costs. Copy of this order be placed in all the files to keep the record straight. Files after its due compilation be consigned to records.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

 31-07-2018                                                   District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral          

Member        

 

Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan,

Member                                                                                      

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.