DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2021.
Date of hearing : 10.06.2024.
Date of order : 16.07.2024.
Dated the 16th day of July 2024.
Sanjay Sethy, S/o- Ramesh Chandra Sethy,
Vill- Bisolsashan, Po- Kulana, P.S:- Bhandaripokhari,
Dist- Bhadrak. . . . . Complainant.
Vrs.
- The Manager of ESCORT Limited, Customer Service,
Escorts Agri Machinery, 18/4 - Mathura Road,
Faridabad (India) Haryana, Pin-121007.
- Owner of Panigrahi Motors,
Authorized Dealer of Powertrac Tractor,
Mr. Sudhanshusekhar Panigraphi
At:- Dahanigadia, Po:- Charampa, P.S:- Bhadrak(R),
Dist:- Bhadrak.
- The Manager of HDFC Bank, Bhadrak Branch,
At:- Gupta Complex, Salandi By-Pass, Po/PS/Dist:- Bhadrak-756100.
- The Manager of HDFC Bank,
House, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai, India, Pin-400013. . . . . . Opp. Parties.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
Counsel for the Complainant: Sri Niranjan Sahoo, Advocate & Associates.
Counsel for the O.P. No. 1 : Sri Basanta Ku. Mohanty, Adv. & Associates,
Counsel for the O.P. No. 2 : Sri Jatikanta Nayak, Advocate & Associates,
Counsel for O.P. No. 3 & 4 : Sri Pradeep Ku. Mishra, Advocate & Associates.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
A fact of the case is that, the complainant has purchased a Four Wheel drive Powertrac Tractor of Model-PT EUO55E19, 55HP from O.P.No.2 to maintain his livelihood. The cost of the Tractor is Rs.9,60,000/- including RTO Charge, one-time tax, insurance . O.P.N o.2 told the complainant to assist in finance through HDFC Bank. On the same day the O.P. 2 called the Agent of O.P. No. 3 & 4 and signed on some blank printed forms & received Rs.2,60,000/- as down payment for the tractor. O.P.3 & 4 sanctioned a loan of Rs.7,00,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle & Rs.37,451/- towards the insurance premium & credit protect On 13.06.2021, the O.P. 2 delivered the said model tractor bearing Engine No. E3612366 & Chassis No.T053546487 AK without any vehicular papers & told to use the Tractor in agricultural work & provide all the papers within a month. On 04.08.2021 the O.P.3 & 4 have received EMI of Rs.18,328/- from the account of complainant’s father by encashing the P.D.C. Cheque No.765407. The O.Ps have not delivered the registration certificate of the vehicle & O.P.3 & 4 have not delivered the copy of agreement & statement of account for which the complainant could not know the period of EMI, numbers of EMI & also the amount of EMI. After 1st service on 10.08.2021 the vehicle showed back wheel locked & hydraulic problem & gear box problem for which the vehicle could not run. The complainant consulted with the dealer. As per the advice of OP No.2, the complainant towed the vehicle to the showroom. Neither the OP No.2 nor his Show Room solved the problem by repairing. After awaiting 9 days the complainant forced to draw the attention of O.P. No.1 by e-mail on dtd.19.08.2021. The O.P. 1 & 2 neither solved the problem nor exchanged the vehicle. During heavy working period of agriculture the vehicle couldn’t be used due to the said defect for which the complainant incurred loss of income of Rs.5,000/- per day till now & also could not pay EMI to the O.P.3 & 4. The complainant lost 36 day’s income i.e. total Rs.1,80,000/-. The O.P.1 & 2 are liable to fulfill the losses. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to deliver the said vehicle either repaired under warranty or by replacement with a new tractor & also repay the loan EMI of Rs.1,80,000/- for losses of complainant. The complainant has filed the documents i.e. (1) Copy of bank statement (Annex-1) (2) Loan sanction letter (Annex-2) (3) Insurance of the vehicle given by HDFC ERGO GIC Ltd.(Annex-3)(4) Complain letter dtd.19.08.2021 (Annex-4) & (5) Mail receipt (Annex-5).
The O.P.No.1 submits that, the O.P.1 is a leading manufacturer of the tractors in India and abroad since 1960. The tractors of O.Ps are manufactured by a high quality skilled work force & modern machines to ensure that every tractor produced is of the highest quality & provides utmost consumer satisfaction. The tractors manufactured by the O.P. are in high demand in the market. The tractors are delivered by the O.P. only after conducting the pre-delivery inspection and stringent quality checks as per the prescribed standard and same has been done in the instance case also. The complainant has failed to provide any cause of action against the O.P. The complainant in his entire complaint has not made any specific allegations against the O.P. There exists no cause of action against the O.P. The complaint is false, frivolous & vexatious in nature. There exists no privity of contract between the O.P. & the complainant. The O.P. does not sell tractors manufactured by it to any individual customer. To sell its tractors & other products, the O.P. enters into dealership agreements with its dealers across the country & appoints them as its authorized dealers. The O.P.No.2 i.e. Panigrahi Motors had duly made an application for the registration of the tractor as can be evidenced from the receipt dtd.26.06.2021 from Odisha Motor Vehicles Department, Bhadrak. The RC is directly couriered by the RTO to the customer. The first service of the tractor was done on 18.07.2021 when the tractor had run for 50 hours & the service was done to the utmost satisfaction of the complainant as can be evidenced from the signed job card dtd.18.07.2021. Whenever the customer approached with any problem in the tractor, his problems were duly addressed & resolved. The complete set of rear axle including housing was changed by the O.P.2 for customer’s satisfaction on 29.08.2021 as can be evidenced from the job card dtd.29.08.2021. The tractor is in its finest working conditions and is lying at the dealer shop (O.P.2) as the complainant is refusing to collect it from the premises. Hence, no cause of action arises against the O.P. No.1. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief whatsoever and is not entitled to claim & recover anything from the O.P. No.1. The O.P.1 has filed the documents i.e. (1) Registration of tractor dtd.26.06.2021 (2) Job Card dtd.18.07.2021 & (3) Job Card dtd.29.08.2021.
The O.P.No.2 is set ex-parte as on dtd.18.09.2023.
The O.P.No.3 & 4 submit that, the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.7,37,451/- which includes Rs.31,189/- towards Motor Insurance Premium & Rs.6,262/- towards Credit Protect Premium from the O.P. Bank on 23.06.2021 vide Loan-Cum-Hypothecation Agreement bearing Loan Account No.85491316 for purchasing a tractor. The complainant while signing the agreement had understood all its terms & conditions and accordingly agreed upon all the terms & conditions of the said agreement, inter-alia agreeing to repay the loan having each installment amounting to Rs.18,328/-. And as on 18.02.2022 there is a total outstanding of Rs.1,18,469/- (which includes Rs.1,09,968/- towards EMI, Rs.5,313/- towards OEI & Rs.3,186/- towards CBC) which the complainant is liable to pay & clear. There is no allegation of any deficiency of service against these O.P. Bank. The complainant’s sole allegations are against the O.P.1 & 2. As per “Repayment” clause 4 of the loan agreement, the O.P. Bank has nothing to do with the documentation of the vehicle or defects in the vehicle and any concern with respect to defects in the vehicle can only be answered by the dealer only. The O.P. Bank being a financer and as per terms of the agreement, the O.P. Bank is only concerned with repayment of loan by the borrower & have legitimate right to recover the loan dues even if there is any defect in the vehicle. The complainant had suppressed the fact of keeping a huge amount of loan unpaid, the complainant has made false allegation of non-supply of agreement copy & copy of account statement, The monthly installments are tobe paid regularly on monthly basis by the complainant. The O.Ps have filed the documents i.e. (1) Copy of Statement of HDFC Bank & (2) Copy of the Loan Agreement.
Having gone through the rival contention and after careful consideration to the materials available in the case record, this commission finds that as pleaded by the complainant, he has failed to prove that he has brought the allegation of non-performance of hydraulic and back wheel to the notice of the OP No.1 & 2. In the contrary, the job Card of 29/08/2021 does not even speak about any such problem. The complainant has no claim against O.P.No.3 & 4. The complainant has failed to prove his allegations against O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.2.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is dismissed. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the Open Court on this the 16th day of July 2024 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
