Present         (1)    Sri Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                     President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order :- 07.07.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has prayed to directed the Opposite party:-

1. To available the Tractor to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs. 25,000.00(Twenty five thousand only) as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000.00(Ten thousand only) for litigation cost.
4. To pay interest @ 18% p.a for aforesaid total amount.

1. The complainant has filed his complaint in Hindi and for sake convenience relevant facts of complaint is being narrated shortly after translating the same in English which are as follows :-

1. The complainant purchased a Tractor in assurance of the Opposite party no.3 (Sri Alok Kumar) who is agent of the Opposite party no.2 ( M/s Krishna Agency). Since the complainant’s Agriculture Farm was effecting without Tractor so he purchased the aforesaid vehicle from famous company so that no any harass and agricultural works acted on time.
2. The complainant gave amount of Rs.1,90,000.00(One lac ninety thousand only) for investing and Rs.10,000.00(Ten thousand only) for financed and thereafter on 25.01.11 the vehicle has been booked and related documents were handed over to the complainant.
3. The Opposite party no.5 came with another agent Sri Rajesh Kumar and give some advice to the complainant for soon possession of the vehicle so that the agricultural works may be done in time and the Opposite party no.5 again made payment of Rs.10,000.00(Ten thousand only) to the Opposite party no.6.
4. Since the price of the Tractor is Rs.4,90,000.00(Four lacs ninety thousand only) and Rs.3,00,000.00(Three lacs only) has been financed by the Opposite party no.3 and 4 and D.O letter issued by the financer after one month but it is very much unfortunate here that the Tractor has not been available to the complainant till date and warranty period of tractor’s battery is starting before issuing D.O Letter.
5. It is stated that deficiency in service  on the part of the Opposite parties the complainant is getting loss of Rs.25,000.00(Twenty five thousand only). The complainant met with the Opposite parties and contacted through telephonically and requested them that after removing mistake the tractor may be supplied to the complainant shortly.         

2. The Opposite party no.1 in his written statement has submitted the following facts:-

1. This complaint case has been filed with a manufactured and concocted story on non existing facts with an ulterior motive for an illegal gain and entire pleadings made therein are out & our false.
2. The complainant purchased Mahindra & Mahindra made Tractor bearing Model No. 265 DLX, Chassis No. And Engine No. RAQO 00272 on 25.01.11 from Authorised Dealer M/s Krishna Tractors, Patna (Opposite party no.2).
3. The total value of the aforesaid Tractor is Rs.4,30,000.00(Four lacs thirty thousand only) and complainant took financial loan of Rs.3,00,000.00(Three lacs only) to purchase the tractor from Opposite party no.1 after executing of relevant documents and loan cum hypothecation Agreement between them and for this the margin money is Rs.1,30,000.00(One lac thirty thousand only) and other amount as expenses in finance, insurance, documentation and registration it raise as total Rs.1,81,793.00( One lac eighty one thousand seven hundred ninety three only).
4. The complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000.00(One lac only) on 25.01.11 to M/s Krishna Tractor and under taken to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 81,793.00(Eighty one thousand seven hundred ninety three only) before 25.02.11. on the request of the complainant so that his agricultural work may  not be hamper, the Opposite party no.2 delivered the Tractor to him on 25.01.11.
5. As per requirement before delivery of the tractor Pre Delivery Inspection (PDI) was done on 25.01.11 on which complainant had put his signature, after delivery of vehicle, installation wad done, Warranty Acknowledgment Form was filed up and Gate pass was issued and the complainant had signed on all those paper on 25.01.11 which show that he took way the tractor with him.
6. The complainant did not paid aforesaid remaining amount to the Opposite party no.2 and on enquiry by the Opposite party 2 it learnt that the aforesaid Tractor damaged by the complainant in an accident and suppressing this fact the present complaint has been filed.
7. The complainant surrendered the aforesaid vehicle with a grievance for its replacement with a new vehicle though he has not paid a single instalment to the Opposite party no.3 and 4. Thus it is clear that there is no deficiency in service by this Opposite party no.1 or by any other Opposite parties and no cause of action arose for filing of this complaint case.

3. The Opposite party no.2 in their written statement has submitted the following facts:-

1. The alleged cause of action and the manner of the accrual as given out in the complaint are wrong and concocted for the purpose of the case.
2. Actually the complainant already received the alleged Tractor from the petitioner on 25.01.11. On the request of the complainant that agricultural work has been start and for earning money in this season, deliver the Tractor and the complainant took responsibility of balance amount due payment, within a month for the delivery of Tractor and the Opposite party delivered the alleged Tractor vide Model No. 265 DCX Engine, Chassis No. RAQO-00273 to the complainant on same day i.e. 25.01.11.
3. It is submitted that the complainant has not paid the balance dues amount of the petitioner before or after 25.02.11 and try to grab and misappropriate the money. The Opposite party got knowledge from the other villager of the complainant that the complainant conduct is bad earlier also as the complainant has not return loans amount from other bank and financial intuitions also.
4. The Opposite party also got knowledge from the villager of the complainant that after delivery of the Tractor an accident has been occurred and some damage on the vehicle and after suppression of material fact the complainant filed this concocted case.
5. The Opposite party given several notice to the complainant for the dues of Rs. 81,793.00(Eighty one thousand seven hundred ninety three only) but till toady same has not paid.     

4. The Opposite party no.3 & 4 in their written statement has submitted the following facts:-

1. The present complaint of the complainant attributing certain deficiency in services against the Opposite parties and inter alia for making available a New vehicle and further a compensation amount of Rs.25,000.00(Twenty five thousand only) but it is clear that present complaint has been filed with a malafide intention and on the basis of erroneous and secluded facts.
2. The complainant approached the Branch office Patna Saheb of the Opposite party, Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for availing a credit facility for the purchase of a Tractor of the following description “Mahindra 265 DI Bhoomiputra and after execution of relevant documents and further a loan cum hypothecation Agreement between the complainant  and this Opposite party , a loan amount of Rs.3,00,000.00(Three lacs only) was extended by this Opposite party for the purchase of the aforesaid vehicle.
3. A loan Agreement bearing No.1475833 dated 15.02.11 was entered into in between the complainant and this Opposite party, Mahindra Financial Service Ltd. prescribing the terms and conditions under which the loan was being extended and it is further stated that the vehicle for purchase of which the loan was being extended under the agreement was hypothecated in favour of Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd.
4. The Opposite party further stated and submitted that clause-12 of the loan Agreement prescribed for the consequences in case of default made by the complainant to adhere to repayment schedule and the same amongst other remedies made it open for the Opposite party to take custody of the hypothecated vehicle and to further sale it in order to liquidate the outstanding dues towards the loan account.
5. It is stated that a bare perusal of the statement of account which has been annexed by the complainant with his complaint petition would make it apparent that the complainant had not paid a single rupees towards liquidation of the loan amount and therefore had entitled the Opposite party to resort to the remedies as prescribed in claue-12 of the loan agreement.
6. The vehicle in question  which has been purchased by the complainant after obtaining the loan facility from this Opposite party had apparently being damaged by the complainant in an accident and after which the complainant had been pestering the dealer for replacement of the said vehicle.
7. The Opposite party cannot be held responsible for an accident which has occurred due to some mis-happing with the complainant and therefore it does not fall in the mount of the complainant that the complainant would abstain from payment of instalment because the complainant has net with some accident.
8. On 18.11.11  a notice issued to the complainant requesting for payment of the outstanding dues towards the loan account and has further also clarified that the Opposite party would be constrained to sell the hypothecated vehicle if the complainant does not liquidate the dues of the Opposite party.
9. The complainant made no endeavour whatsoever to liquidate the dues of the Opposite party even after the issuance of the aforesaid notice. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service which can be attributed to this Opposite party and rather the complainant has acted in breach of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement.   

The facts asserted by the parties have been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs. However at the cost of repetition, the short facts of this case is again being narrated for the sake of recording our finding.

Complainant’s has asserted that on the assurance of opposite party no. 1 he has paid Rs. 1,90,000/- ( Rs. One Lac Ninety Thousand only ) for getting the rest amount financed. The vehicle in question i.e. tractor was booked on 25.01.2011. it has been further asserted that out of Rs. 4,90,000/- ( Rs. Four Lac Ninety Thousand only ), which is price of the tractor, Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lac only )_ was financed by opposite party no. 3 and 4. It has been asserted by the complainant that despite payment of total price, the tractor in question has not been handed over the complainant putting him loss of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) per month. Opposite party no. 3 and 4 have filed detailed show cause stating therein that after execution of relevant documents relating to the hypothecation agreement, a loan of three lacs was extended to the complaint by opposite party for purchase of tractor ( Vide Annexure – A ). It has been asserted by the opposite party no. 3 and 4 in Para – 11 of show cause/ written statement that complainant has not paid a single Rupees towards liquidation of loan amount. Opposite party no. 3 and 4 in Para – 12 and 13 of show cause/ written statement have asserted the complainant has surrendered the tractor apparently being damaged by the complainant in an accident after which he is pressing for replacement. Opposite party no. 2 in Para – 5 of written statement has asserted that “ complainant has already recovered the alleged tractor from petitioner i.e. opposite party no. 2 on 25.01.2011 ( Vide Annexure – II of written statement ). In Para 16 opposite party no. 2 has not paid balance amount of opposite party no. 2 after 25.02.2001, opposite party no. 1 has also supported the aforesaid facts asserted by other opposite parties.

Thus, from the several documents annexed by opposite parties in their written statement and from the facts asserted therein it is crystal clear that the complainant had recovered the tractor are after accident he had surrendered the same to opposite parties after the said tractor was damaged in accident. It is also asserted by opposite parties in their show cause/ written statement that complainant has not paid dues amount to opposite parties. The facts asserted by opposite parties in their show cause / written statement has not been denied by complainant by filing rejoinder etc. hereby find that the complainant has supported several facts in his complaint are as such we don’t find any deficiency in this case on the part of opposite parties.

From the discussions made above we find no substance in his complaint are as such this complaint dismissed but without costs.

Member                                                 President