Orissa

Jajapur

CC/14/2016

Laxmidhar Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kamala Motors Authorised Dealer-cum-Sales and Service of Sonalika Tractor. - Opp.Party(s)

Renubala Mohanty

07 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 7th day of February,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No.14 of 2016

Laxmidar Rout, S/O Basudev Rout

Vill.Sapanpur ,P.O. Chhatia

P.S. Badachana, Dist.Jajpur                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                 .                   (Versus)

1.Kamala Motors Authorised Dealers –cum-Sale and service of Sonalike Tractor

 At.Plot No.483,Benapur, Near Dhaneswar Chhak,P.O/P.S/Jajpur Road,

Dist. Jajpur

2.Manager International Tractors Ltd, Vilage chak Gujran,P.O. Piplanwala, Jalandhar Road

Hosiarpur, Punjab.

3.Manager Magma ITL Finance Ltd, Jajpur Road Branch ,1^st floor ,Babulal Sharma complex,

Nakua Road,  P.O/P.S/Jajpur Road, Dt. Jajpur.

 

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                    Miss Renubala Mohanty, Sri P.Samanta, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No. 2                 .         Sri G.C.Panda, Miss B.R.Rout ,Advocates .

For the Opp.Parties No.1                              None.

For the Opp.Parties No.3                               Sri A.K.Pahil,Advocate.                                    

                                                                                       

                                                                                                 Date of order:   07.02.2018.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT  .

Deficiency in service is the grievance of the petitioner.

            The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that he purchased a SONALIKA GRADEN TRACTOR of model GT20(S.C)540 on 31.05.15  having chasis No.EMGSE434798G,ENGINE NO.AI964194 20H.P  bearing Trade certificate No.OD-04-C-115/2014 from O.P.no.1 having warranty for 18 months or 1500 hours of operation . Since the petitioner a poor farmer ,he approached the O.P.no.3 to finance the cost of the Tractor and  accordingly the O.P.no.3 sanctioned the loan as per Annexture-3 . After one month of purchase, the said tractor  was found with various defect and ultimately the tractor became invalid and  not able to work  , so the petitioner made a complain before O.P.no.1 but the O.P.no.1 did not care to attend the complain of the petitioner . Due to non functioning of Tractor the petitioner was also not able to pay the installments towards the loan amount of O.P.no.3. Thus the petitioner took the tractor to the work shop of O.P.no.1 with the help of a Pick up van by spending Rs.1,000/- on 28.07.15 for necessary  repair and the Tractor was kept by O.P.no.1 for two days after which the O.p.no.1 mentioned the details of the repair mentioned in service record Vide annexture-4. After fifteen days thereafter again the same defect was found . The petitioner contacted the O.P.no.1, but there was no response from the O.P.no.1 .After which the petitioner issued pleader’s notice to O.p.no.1 and 2 on 28.09.15  vide Annexture-5 and 6 . There was no  response from O.p.no.1 and 2 , So 11.12.15 the tractor was taken to the workshop of O.p.no.1 by a pick up van by spending Rs.1,000-  and the O.P.no.1 issued a job card No.112 dt.11.12.2015 to the petitioner vide Annexture-8.

            Since then  the tractor was with the O.P.no.1 at his show room . The inaction of O.P.no.1 and 2 coupled with the notice of O.P.no.3 for payment of monthly installments on 18.12.2015 ( vide Annexture-9 ) landed the petitioner into gross misfortune for which the petitioner prayed time to O.P.no.3  vide Annexture-10 for payment of installments on 21.12.15 .  The attempt of the petitioner to contact the O.P.no.1 did not bear fruit as there was engine problem along with manufacturing defect ,so the petitioner being hopeless due action of the O.Ps Vide Annexture-11 and 13. Serve Pleader’s notice to the O.ps for replacement of the Tractor which was returned by them ,accepting the only reply on 18.01.16. The conduct of the O.ps has put the petitioner into problem who suffered financially and also mentally . Finding no other alternative the petitioner filed this complain claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- and replacement of tractor . The complaint is supported by an affidavit.

            The O.P.no.1 was set exparte vide order dt.20.02.17. The O.p.no.2 and 3 entered appearance and filed their  written version and contested the case.

            The O.P.no.2 in its objection inter alia denied the maintainability of the case filed by the complainant  submitted that there was no cause of action to file the present dispute but admitted regarding the purchase of the Tractor by the complainant. But it is submitted by the O.P.no.2 that after sale service is provided by the dealer or authorized service center , the O.p.no.2 never deals with any customer directly .There was no contract between the O.P.no.2 and petitioner. It is also submitted that no complaint was received by the O.P.no.2 regarding defect of the Tractor . In para-d of the written objection of O.P.no.2 stated that the Tractor was duly repaired by O.P.no.1 and the Tractor was in perfectly good running condition . According to O.P.no.2 that the complainant was asked to take back the Tractor after repair but the complainant intentionally did not take the Tractor . It is further in the written objection of O.P.no.2 that the O.P.no.1 even contacted their mobile and deputed his employee and asked him to take the tractor from the service   center  but the complainant avoided it and did not take back the Tractor to his position . Ultimately the O.P.no.1 issued registered letter on 18.01.2016 to the complainant to take back the Tractor but the complainant did not come to take the tractor. Like wise the O.p.no.2 said  that no service was providd to the complainant. There was no manufacturing defect in the Tractor and the Tractor was in perfect running condition. The storey of the complainant was totally false and concocted and the complainant himself is liable for damage caused to the Tractor. According to the O.P.no.2 there was no question of replacement . The cause of action is denied by O.p.no.2  and it is submitted that the complainant  is not entitled to any relief for which his prayer may be dismissed with cost.    

            The O.p.no.3 is the financer who admittedly supplied money to the complainant for purchase of the Tractor in question . According to O.P.no.3 as per contract bearing No.PG.0163/A/14/100001  dt.01.06.2015 the cost of tractor is Rs.420000/-  out of which an amount of Rs.221581/- was financed by the O.P.no.3. The complaiant also agreed to pay a sum of rs.115239/- . towards the finance charge. Hence the complainant is liable to pay total sum of Rs.336720/-.  Towards the contract value . According to O.P.no.3 the complainant has agreed to pay the installments with a stipulated period failing which the complainant is liable to pay delayed payment charges . From the account statement it reveals that the O.P.no.3 only received  two EMI from the complainant. The O.p.no.3 disowned  its knowledge about the defects of the Tractor as alleged by the complainant. However after going through the written version of o.p.no.3 it is clear that the O.p.no.3 is the financer and there is no relief sought by the complainant against O.P.no.3 . But there is no dispute that the Tractor was financed by O.p.no.3.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocates of both the sides. Perused the pleadings and documents available on record .

            After going through the materials on record there is no doubt that the petitioner  purchased a Tractor which is admitted by the O.P.no.2 and 3. The O.p.no.2 in its written version submitted that there was no provision in its company for dealing with the customer  stated in para-d of the written version about the facts of the case and made allegation against the complainant that intentionally the complainant did not take back the Tractor from the O.P.no.1. In para-d of the written version clearly clarified the dispute which  amounts to admission by the O.p.no.1 and 2 that the Tractor is in possession of O.P.no.1  which was sent by  the petitioner for repair . There is no further controversy in the instant case. The O.p.no.1 was set exparte as stated earlier . The O.p.no.1 should have contested this case but preferred to remain silent after getting notice . Accordingly unanimously we accept the uncontroverted statement made by the petitioner in the complaint petition in view of the observation of the Hon’ble Odisha State Commission reported in 2003-CLT-Vol-96-p-15 C.D.Case No.37/02 wherein it is held that

 

“ In absence of written version by the O.P the commission is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement of the complaint petition “.

And

2013(1)-CPR-507(NC),wherein it is held that:

“In case written version not filed after several opportunity ,it has presume no defence on           merit .”

Hence both  O.P.no.1 and 2 are liable and there was patient deficiency of service to the complainant  which amounts to denial of service              .

            Therefore the complainant case is allowed on contest against O.P.no.2 and dismissed against O.P.no.3 .The O.p.no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable serve the consumer after sale of the tractor which has not been done in this case.

Hence this order

            The O.P.no.1 and 2 are directed to supply a new tractor to the petitioner within a period of two months hence from this order and pay Rs.10,000/- jointly to the consumer / petitioner towards litigation cost and mental agony.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th day of February ,2018. under my hand and seal of the Forum.