JUDGMENT
Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.12 of C.P. Act, 1986 seeking following reliefs;
“Direct the opposite party No.1 to replace the tractor of the complainant with a new four wheel drive tractor or return the excess amount taken from complainant for purchase of tractor and supply all the connected papers of the tractor to the complaint and O.P. No.2 be directed to take 9% interest in place of 16.5% interest over the loan amount and pay Rs.75,000/- towards loss in business, Rs.5,000/- for mental agony due to loss of reputation, Rs.5,000/- cost towards running to the office of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- for cost of the litigation”.
The brief fact of the complainant is that, the complainant on 19.10.2017 purchased a tractor on loan from opposite parties by paying Rs.2,20,000/- down payment and loan amount of Rs.5,73,874/- after deduction of subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-, so also the complainant has also paid Rs.5,000/- towards processing charge and Rs.27,000/- towards tax to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 sanctioned loan amount of Rs.5,73,874/- and assured the complainant to take interest @ 9% per annum. But after sanction of loan, complainant came to know that he is paying 16.5% interest per annum on the principal amount. The loan amount and down payment was given by the complainant for purchase of four wheel drive John Deere Tractor but by practicing fraud upon the complainant, the opposite party No.1 delivered two wheel drive tractor and misappropriated the amount. It came to knowledge of the complainant that, the price of the two wheel drive tractor is Rs.6,80,000/-.
The opposite party No.1 & 2 filed their written version as under;
The disputed tractor price after discount was Rs.6,52,693/- AND Hitch, Hood, Bumpher was extra Rs.27,000/-. The complainant had to pay Rs.6,79,693/-. The concerned bank released to the opposite party No.1 Rs.5,44,235/- and the rest amount of Rs.1,35,458/- dues was to be paid by the complainant. But complainant paid Rs.1,15,000/- and balance arrear dues was Rs.20,458/-, there after the RTO charges Rs.47,000/- had to be paid extra by complainant which was clearly communicated to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant further paid Rs.27,000/- committing that he would pay the rest outstanding including RTO of Rs.40,458/- when he will next come with his tractor for Registration and to prepare necessary RTO papers in his presence. Even after telephoning reminder by the opposite party the complainant is not in contact any more. The complainant after discussion with financer requested to the opposite party No.1 for a quotation and on request the opposite party No.1 had issued a two wheel drive 5045D quotation, that was submitted by him to the financer and accordingly the financer gave the customer 5045D delivery order which he produced to the opposite party No.1 and accordingly the opposite party No.1 had delivered him aforesaid tractor.
We found from the records that complainant has purchased the vehicle from opposite party No.1 whose address as such (Manager, Vinayak Enterprises, Authorized Dealer for John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Tractors, At- Plot No.B/28, Khapuria Industrial Estate, Madhupatana, Khapuria, Cuttack- 753010) and taken loan from opposite party No.2 whose address as such (Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Near Big Bazar, Satya Nagar, Bhubaneswar, Khurda) but in order to bring the jurisdiction of this Commission, the complainant has made the opposite party No.3 i.e. the authorized dealer of Jagtsinghpur who has no connection with this case and the complainant has not whispered a single line against opposite party No.3, but in written note of argument complainant has stated in his written version that the opposite party No.3 being the dealer of John Deere Company deliver and sold the vehicle at Jagatsinghpur and 1st service was given by opposite party No.3 but there is no such pleading in the consumer complaint as such the said statement has no leg to stand and not supported with any document in his complaint petition. As such we found that this Commission has no jurisdiction U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to entertain the application. As such we dismissed the consumer complaint having no jurisdiction without any cost.
