1.                     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that for purchase of a Tractor, she approached OP.2 who explained that the cost of the tractor is Rs.7.00 lacs for which the complainant has to deposit Rs.2, 26,000/- towards down payment and also to pay Rs.14, 062/- as EMI for 60 months.  Agreeing with proposal of the OP.2, the complainant deposited Rs.2, 26, 099/- as down payment and the OP.2 took thumb impressions of the complainant in several papers.  The complainant submitted that she had no direct contact with OP.1 (financier) but a representative of OP.1 comes every month to the complainant for taking EMIs and issues receipts either on the spot or sometimes on later dates.  It is further submitted that on one occasion, the agent of OP.1 collected Rs.70, 000/- in the month of April, 2013 but issued a blank receipt to the complainant but after a query, the complainant could know that Rs.17, 000/- has been adjusted to her loan accounts instead of Rs.70, 000/-.  It is also further submitted that the complainant paid the installments till Sept.’15 but due to damage of crop she could not pay EMI for Oct., 2015 and for that reason the OP.1 threatens to repossess the tractor.  The complainant through an amendment petition also submitted that the OP.2 issued a calculation slip stating that the Head of Tractor is Rs.4, 61,643/-, Trolley of Rs.1, 45,000/- and Double Cage Wheel of Rs.28, 000/- totaling Rs.6, 345,643/-.  The Govt. of Odisha has provided subsidy of Rs.90, 000/- towards purchase of tractor directly to the OP.2.  The complainant further stated that besides deposit of Rs.2, 26, 099/- as down payment, she has paid insurance and registration charges and also purchased Double Cage Wheel for Rs.28, 000/- from the local market but the OP.2 by misquoting the cost of the Tractor, has financed more amount than that of the cost of the Tractor.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops for reconciliation of demand of OP.1, to adjust Rs.53, 000/- paid by the complainant during the month of April, 2013 and the Ops to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that as per contract bearing No.PG/0158/A/11/000013 dt.10.7.2012, the cost of the tractor is Rs.6, 96,099/- in which an amount of Rs.4, 81,931/- was financed by the OP and with charges, the complainant has agreed to pay Rs.8, 43,720 towards contact value to be paid in 60 EMIs but the complainant has never paid the EMIs in time.  The OP contended that the chart as shown in the complaint petition mismatches with the record of the OP and the OP denied any excess amount received from the complainant except those mentioned in the statement of accounts. Regarding disputed payment of Rs.70, 000/-, the OP stated that they have received only Rs.17, 000/-.  The OP.1 further contended that due to nonpayment of EMIs, the dispute between the parties was referred to the sole Arbitrator and the Ld. Arbitrator vide its order dt.26.7.2015 awarded a sum of Rs.4, 16,434/- in favour of the OP.1 and after that order, the complainant has come up with this case.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that he has no role to play between the financier and the complainant and he did not give any suggestion to the complainant to purchase vehicle through finance.  The OP further contended that the complainant came and asked the OP.2 for quotation and directly went to finance company and on receipt of whole amount from the finance, the OP delivered the tractor to the complainant.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant as well as OP.1 has filed certain documents in support of their case.  Heard from the complainant through her A/R and perused the documents available on record.

5.                     In this case, the complainant as per proposal paid a sum of Rs.2, 26,099/- as down payment for purchase of John Deer Tractor from OP.2 who delivered the tractor after taking several thumb impressions from the complainant on blank papers.  The complainant stated that she had no direct link with OP.1 (financier) but the OP.2 who arranged the financier stated that the EMI is Rs.14, 062/- for repayment of loan dues.  As per agreement No.PG/0158/A/11/000013 dt.10.07.2012, the cost of the vehicle was Rs.6, 96,099/- in which a sum of Rs.4, 81,931/- was financed and with financial charges, a total sum of Rs.8, 43,720/- was to be paid by the complainant for 60 EMIs.  It is submitted that the complainant started repaying the loan from August, 2012 and up to August, 2015 she has paid a sum of Rs.5, 38,400/- to the OP.1.  The complainant further stated that on one occasion she paid Rs.70, 000/- to OP.1 towards EMI but in the statement of accounts it was shown as Rs.17, 000/- during April, 2013.  The complainant has also prayed for reconciliation of demands of OP.1 and adjust Rs.53, 000/- against loan accounts.

6.                     The OP.1 stated that the complainant is a defaulter and the dispute between the parties was referred to the Ld. Arbitrator and the sole Arbitrator vide its order dt.20.7.2015 awarded a sum of Rs.4, 16,434/- in favour of OP.1.  The OP.1 has also filed copy of order of arbitration No.122898 dt.20.07.2015 decided between the OP.1 and the complainant to which we have gone through.  The OP.1 challenged the maintainability of this case before the Forum after arbitration is passed in their favour.  It is a settled principle of law that a complaint cannot be decided by Consumer Forum after an arbitration proceeding is already passed.  In view of above facts, no consumer complaint is maintainable against the OP.1 under C. P. Act and as such we cannot pass any order after the disputes have been decided between the complainant and OP.1 by the sole Arbitrator.

7.                     The complainant stated that the OP.2 has taken Rs.4, 61,643/- towards cost of tractor head.  The complainant in support of his contentions has filed a calculation-cum-estimate sheet supplied by the OP.2 in which the OP.2 has mentioned the cost of tractor head as Rs.4, 61, 643/- and as per said estimate the OP.2 has taken Rs.4, 61, 643/- towards cost of tractor head.  On the other hand the Orissa Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. (OAICL), A Govt. of Odisha Undertaking who is the sponsorer of subsidy to the farmers towards purchase of tractor for agriculture            purpose, has fixed the price of John Deer Tractor head as Rs.5, 35,643/- minus Rs.90, 000/- towards subsidy.  Therefore, the cost of tractor head comes to Rs.4, 45,643/- but the OP.2 as per his estimate has taken Rs.4, 61, 643/- which is Rs.16, 000/- excess than the rate fixed by the department concerned.  We have gone through Chalan No.535354 of OAICL in which it is clearly mentioned that after deducting the subsidy price, the cost of tractor head is Rs.4, 45, 643/- and it has been advised in the said chalan that the said amount is to be received from Magma Finance by OP No.2 but it is found that the OP.2 has received Rs.16, 000/- extra through a wrong estimate.

8.                     It is further seen that this Forum considering the petition dt.08.2.2017 of the complainant had directed the OP.2 to produce (1) Copy of quotation of tractor purchased by the petitioner, (2) Receipt of down payment made by the petitioner and (3) Document of subsidy availed by the petitioner but in spite of several opportunities, the OP.2 has not produced the same for which some real facts behind the screen could not be brought into light.  The complainant has approached in that petition that the OP.2 had not supplied the above documents to her during purchase of tractor.  The complainant also expressed her inability before the Forum to show any more document in support of her allegations as those documents were not supplied to her by the OP.2.  It is also a matter of concern that in spite of specific direction, the OP.2 has not produced the documents.  This type of activity shows the nature and behaviour of a trader to its customer as well as to the adjudicating authorities.  In absence of documents, the complainant also failed to bring more facts with evidence before the Forum.  Due to such unfair trade practice of the OP.2, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which she is entitled for some compensation and cost of this litigation.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.4000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.  Further she is to get back Rs.16, 000/- with due interest from the OP.2.

9.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund Rs.16, 000/- towards excess amount taken with interest @ 12% p.a. from dt.10.07.2012 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.4000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.  There is no case against OP No.1.

(to dict.)