DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO.21 OF 2017
Anita Saraf,
W/O- Ashok Saraf,
AT: Aitapali,PS: Laikera,
Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha…………………………………………………Complainant.
Versus
- Kalinga Industries, Near Amrita Filling Station,
By Pass Road,Sarbahal,Jharsuguda,
PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda.
- Kalinga Industries,
Headquarter at Industrial Estate,
Bareipali, Sambalpur.
- Branch Manager,
ICICI Bank, Jharsuguda Branch,
Kali Mandir Road,Jharsuguda,
PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.
- Deputy Director of Agriculture,
At- Near SP Office,Jharsuguda,
PO: OMP Line,Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha.
- District Agricultural Officer,
At- Near SP Office,Jharsuguda,
PO: OMP Line,Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha.
- Agriculatural Director,
Agriculture & Farmer Empowerment Department,
At.AG, Nautala, Bhubaneswar…………………....….……...Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant R.Ali, Adv.& Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.1 &2 C.R. Panda, Adv.& Associates.
For the Opp. Party No. 3 A.K.Sahoo,Adv, & Associates.
For the Opp. Party No.4,5 & 6 Mukesh Tiwary, G.P.
Date of Order: 01.10.2018
Present
1. Shri Sundar Lal Behera, President.
2. Smt. Anamika Nanda, Member(W).
Shri Sundarlal Behera, President : - Brief facts of the case are that the complainant in order to get benefit of subsidy had purchased a Mahindra Brand of Diesel Tractor with Trolley from O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 Kalinga Industry, Jharsuguda being finance by ICICI Bank, Jharsuguda on dtd.18.01.2016 executing Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement for Rs.3,58,013/- only to be repaid in 36 nos. of equated monthly installments @ Rs.12,476/- only each commencing from 22.02.2016 to 22.01.2019. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.4,5 & 6 being the responsible officers of the Agriculature department who did not provide required 50% subsidy assured to her and simultaneously deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2, the company who had provided the finance Tractor and Trolley due to non-supply of vehicular documents including insurance of the vehicles which unable the complainant to run the vehicle due to wants of required Registration Certificate. In her complaint the complainant has also averred that the Financier ICICI Bank as O.P.No.3 alleges deficiency in service who threatened her to repossessed the vehicle on the event of non-payment of regular installment despite repayment of monthly installments in her poor financial condition.
The O.P.No.1&2 jointly in their written version admit the factum of purchased of Tractor as per delivery challan dtd.23.10.2015, and Sale Certificate dtd.23.10.2015 being financed by the O.P.No.3. They submit that, at the time of delivery of the Tractor the required Delivery challan, Sale Letter dtd. 23.10.2015, Form-F dtd.23.10.2015, Form-22 bearing chasis No. KI/14-15/38 etc. were handed over to the complainant on dtd. 23.10.2015. They totally denied the allegation of the complainant regarding non-supply of those documents. The O.P.No.3 Financier of the vehicle admit availment of financial assistant availed by the complainant for purchased of tractor but denied to have receipt of R.C. Book from the complainant as per Banking procedure. The O.P.No.5/Dist. Agricultural Officer(DAO),Jharsuguda submitted that, the complainant has purchased agricultural equipment directly from M/s.Kalinga Industry,Jharsuguda on financed by ICICI Bank,Jharsuguda without any knowledge of agriculture department. It is also submitted that after checking of Govt. of Odisha Agribusiness portal, it found applicant M/s. Anita Saraf wife of Ashok Saraf of village Aitapali of Laikera Block has neither registered her name in agribusiness portal nor submitted any application to the agriculture department towards installation of agroservice centre which was started from 01.04.2014. Accordingly, their claim is that they are not responsible in connection to non-payment of subsidy. Various documents have been filed by the parties on contest to established their respective pleas.
We have gone through the complaint of the complainant, written versions of the O.Ps. along with written argument of the complainant and documents relied on by them. We have also heard the learned counsels for respective O.Ps. as well as for the complainant.
In her complaint, the complainant has alleges various allegations against the Tractor Supply Agency, Financier as well as the Agriculture Department due to non-receipt of subsidy also non-receipt of required document from the supplier necessary for obtaining Registration Certificate and insurance of the vehicle. As per the submission of the D.A.O, Jharsuguda subsidy payment to the complainant could not be possible due to after taking of Govt. of Odisha agribusiness portal, it is found that the complainant has neither registered her name in agribusiness portal nor any application submitted to the agriculture department towards installation of agroservice centre which was started from 01.04.2014. Accordingly, their claim is that they are responsible in connection to non-payment of subsidy. So the Agriculture department officers O.P.No.4,5 & 6 cannot be held to be rendered deficiency in service on their part due to non-establishment of any improper service on their part. In regard to allegations against the O.P.No.3 the Financing Bank, it can be said that it concerned with the payment of loan amount, payment of the amount to the dealer for the tractor as per the quotation and to recovered the monthly loan installment till liquidation of the loan account of the complainant. So we think no deficiency in service can be saddled on it. If it threatened of repossession of the vehicle due to non-payment of the installment agreed on. Now remain O.P.No.1 & 2, they are not responsible in regard to supply of tractor and trolley to the complainant along with required vehicular documents including insurance paper. The complainant claims that the supplier had supplied tractor and trolley to her on receipt of payment thereof from her Banker but did not provided sale letter and other required documents to run the vehicle smoothly. The O.P.No.1 &2 jointly being the supplier of the vehicle denied the allegation and stated that all the required document were provided to the complainant at the time of delivery of the vehicle. In order to established their stand they have produced the Xerox copies of delivery challan dtd.23.10.2015, Sale Certificate of dtd.23.10.2015 with the signature of the complainant on “Customer Signature Colum” with other documents required under MV Act i.e. Form-22 and F-Form. We have very minutely scrutinizes both the documents. We find both the delivery challan and Sale Certificate were receipt by the complainant on the delivery date of the vehicle i.e. dt.23.10.2015. To ascertain the signature of the complainant on both the documents we had compare those signature with the signature given by the complainant on the complaint petition and found that the signature put forth on the delivery challan and sale certificate duly supplied by the supplier are same with the signature given in the complaint petition. Basing on the above mentioned documentary evidence we cannot blame the O.P.No.1 & 2 who can be held responsible as alleged by the complainant. When the purchased of the vehicle was held in the year-2015 it is not the say of the complainant she had raised any voice demanding those documents/papers to unable her to run the vehicle and has approached in the year-2017 i.e. after more than two years with the allegation of non-supply of vehicular documents i.e. Sale Letter, Insurance and Registration Certificate of the vehicle. When it is established by documentary evidence tender on behalf of the O.P.No.1 & 2 that the delivery challan and sale letter had been supplied by them to the complainant on dated 23.10.2015.
The complainant should have taken proper step to obtain the Registration Certificate of the Tractor and Trolley from Registration Authority and insurance covered from Insurance Company in the said year but had approached this Forum with a prayer in her complaint petition for a direction to supply the vehicular documents including Sale Letter. We do not find any improper service rendered by the O.P.No.1 & 2 in respect to the complainant. However, when the complainant claim not to have receipt the sale letter, delivery challan and other required documents for registration of the vehicle from the supplier of the vehicle it can be presumed that those document might have been mis-placed or could not be available with the complainant.
We, therefore, for the ends of justice and to make convenient to obtained required R.C.Book with Insurance of the vehicle, the O.P.No.1 and O.P.No.2 jointly are directed to supply the duplicate copies of document in respect to the vehicle laying with them to the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above directions the present case is hereby disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today the 1st day of October’ 2018. Free copy of this order be communicated to the concerned parties as per rule.
I Agree.
A.Nanda, Member(W) S. L. Behera, President.
Dictated and corrected by me
S. L. Behera, President
