The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Krishna Agency, Uttareswar, Soro, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the District Agriculture Officer, Simulia, Balasore and O.P No.3 is the Shrachi Rotary Tiller, Bengal Tools Limited, Kolkata.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant had purchased one set power tiller from the authorised dealer/ distributor Krishna Agency (O.P No.1) on 11.06.2014 vide challan No.53 and the cost of one set power tiller is Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand) only as mentioned in the bill and as per govt. guidelines, the O.P No.2 issued permit for subsidy amounting Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousand) only in favour of the Complainant. But, the O.P No.1 demanded Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) only from the Complainant as such the Complainant paid the said amount and obtained money receipt. But, after purchase the Complainant came to know that the actual rate of power tiller set is Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty eight thousand) only as received through RTI Act from District Agriculture Officer, Simulia (O.P No.2) on 23.02.2016, but the challan of O.P No.1 shows that the actual rate of one set of power tiller is Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand) only. Due to illness of the Complainant, she has paid the said amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) only to O.P No.1 through her father-in-law Siba Prasad Panda, for which the O.P No.1 had given the money receipt in the name of Siba Prasad Panda instead of in the name of the Complainant. The O.P No.2 has not sanctioned any power tiller in the name of Siba Prasad Panda. So, as the cost paid by the Complainant was so high instead of its actual price, the Complainant approached the O.P No.1 to refund the excess amount, but the O.P No.1 did not pay any heed to it, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P No.1, causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 11.06.2014 and on 16.05.2016. The Complainant has prayed to refund excess amount with interest along with compensation and litigation cost.
3. Though the O.P No.1 has appeared in this case through his Advocate, but he has not filed his written version in this case. The O.P No.1 is set ex-parte. Neither O.P No.1 nor his Advocate was present at the time of hearing of this case.
4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through the Govt. pleader denying on the point of maintainability. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that the Complainant has not brought up any specific allegation against him. The Complainant is also not the purchaser of the power tiller, but her husband is the purchaser of the said power tiller. Her husband has also filed a C.D Case bearing No.21/2016 against the present O.P No.1 and others with the same allegation. The husband of the Complainant being the purchaser of the power tiller has availed the subsidy amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only in first phase and he will get the rest amount of subsidy of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand) only after second verification by the competent authority. The cost of the seat of the power tiller is extra and it was not mentioned in the quotation and as the husband of the Complainant has not paid the cost of the seat to the O.P No.1 from whom the power tiller was purchased, so the seat was not supplied. The O.P No.2 has not put the husband of the Complainant to any trouble or financial loss. Thus, the case of the Complainant is liable to be rejected. Neither O.P No.2 nor the Govt. pleader was present at the time of hearing of this case.
5. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P No.3 for appearance, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.
6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?
(iii) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
7. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list in her support, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that she had purchased one set of power tiller from the O.P No.1 @ Rs.1,55,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand) only and has paid Rs.80,000/- (Rupees Eighty thousand) only as per demand of O.P No.1 through her father-in-law Siba Prasad Panda, for which the name of Siba Prasad Panda is revealed in the money receipt instead of the name of the Complainant. But, the O.P No.2 had not sanctioned any subsidy in the name of Siba Prasad Panda. After purchasing the said power tiller, the Complainant came to know that the actual rate of the power tiller is Rs.1,28,000/- (Rupees One lakh twenty eight thousand) only. Thus, the Complainant approached the O.P No.1 in several occasions to refund the excess amount, but he did not listen to it, for which the Complainant has filed this case praying for refund of excess amount with interest along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps No.1 and 3 were set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. Neither the O.P No.2 nor the Govt. pleader was present at the time of hearing of this case. So, his pleading remains as it is. In his pleading, he has taken the plea that the Complainant has not brought any specific allegation against him. The Complainant is also not the purchaser of the power tiller, but her husband is the purchaser of the said power tiller. Her husband being the purchaser of the power tiller has availed the subsidy amount of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand) only in the first phase and he will get the rest amount of subsidy of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees Twenty four thousand) only after second verification by the competent authority, but no document has been filed in this regard by O.P No.2. The cost of the seat of the power tiller is extra and the husband of the Complainant has not paid the extra cost of seat of the said power tiller to the O.P No.1, for which the seat was not supplied.
8. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found that the Complainant has filed certain documents as per annexure and the challan no.53 as per annexure-2 dtd.11.06.2014 said to be issued by the O.P No.1 is not in the name of the Complainant, but in the name of one Siba Prasad Panda. The challan is also overwritten and not filed in original. The Consumer has been duly defined as per Section-2(d) of C.P Act, 1986. As per such definition and on perusal of all the materials available in the case record, the Complainant is not a Consumer and her case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.Ps No.1 & 3 and on contest against the O.P No.2, but in the peculiar circumstances without cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 7th day of March, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
