West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/106/2011

Sri Arup Kumar Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s-B.S. Tractor Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.106/2011                                                      Date of disposal: 26/02/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr.Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :      

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. P. Mandal, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. R. Jana, Advocate.

          

Sri Arup Kumar Paul, S/o-late Prafulla Paul, Vill & P.O.-Natuk,  P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. M/s-B.S. Tractor Pvt. Ltd., 60-B, Chowringhee Road, 5^th floor, Kolkata-700020
2. The Ghatal Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd., P.O. & P.S.-Ghatal, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
3. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vill-Chandrakona Road Branch, P.O.-SatBankura Dist-Paschim Medinipur………………………….Ops.

                

                      The case of the complainant, Sri Arup Kumar Paul in short is that he purchased a tractor on 03/08/2010 under loan sanctioned by Op. No.2, Ghatal Peoples Co-operative Bank Ltd. at 2,16,000/-(Two lakh sixteen thousand) only against total cost of 7,31,068/-(Seven lakh thirty one thousand sixty eight) only. It is alleged that after taking delivery of the said vehicle the same exposes some mechanical defects within one month from the date of taking its possession. The matter was reported to the Op. No.1 with a request from necessary repair one. But no action has been taken by them. Thus the complainant has come before us with the allegation of deficiency of service against Op. No.1 with a prayer for getting compensation or replacement with a new tractor in place of this defective one.

                      Op. No.1-M/s B.S. Tractor Pvt. Ltd., contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action. That apart, the claim is bad for non joinder and mis joinder of necessary parties. The allegation of defect Motor is denied

Contd……………..P/2

 

                                                                                                          -( 2 )-

and there is no deficiency of service on the part of Op. No.1. Rather, the complainant paid only 2,00,400/-(Two lakh four hundred) only on 20/07/2010 in place of 2,16,000/-. During warranty period the necessary repairing work has been done. Thus the cause should be dismissed.

               Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed :

 

1.    Whether the case is maintainable in its present form ?
2.    Whether the complainant has any cause of action to seek further relief/reliefs ?
3.    If the forum has any jurisdiction to consider the case ?
4.    To what are the relief the complainant is entitled ?

                        

                                          Decisions with reasons :

Issues No. 1 to 4

            All the issues are taken up litigation for discussion :

            Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that the tractor purchased by the complainant was used for cultivation purpose but within one month its engine was seized. The complaint was made to the Op. No.1 for change of the engine or to do necessary repairing work. But the Op did not give any service. So, the forum should consider the grievance and pass necessary order an prayed for.

       Ld. Advocate for Op. on the other hand made his reply that the allegation of the complainant is baseless. In this connection it would be evident from the relevant documents that the Op took all possible steps for rendering repairing work even eight times for servicing the tractor with free delivery of necessary parts to that effect.

     Besides it is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the transaction in the matter of purchasing the tractor between the complainant and the Op. No.1 was held in the district of Purba Medinipur which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus Ld. Advocate urges not to entertain the case against in this jurisdiction. The case as in the present nature should be dismissed.

      We have considered the case of both parties and it appears that admittedly the tractor was purchased by the complainant. Only question is that whether the Op. has not complied with the terms and conditions of the warranty in connection with the said tractor. In this aspect, there is no legal evidence to establish the allegation that despite intimation to the Op. as regard to the defect of the tractor that demands necessary repairing work. In view of the facts, we are not of the opinion to accept the allegation established by the complainant. Secondly, the transaction for purchasing the tractor has been held within P.S. Ghatal, Paschim Medinipur which falls best within the territorial

Contd……………..P/3

 

                                                                                                       -( 3 )-

jurisdiction of this Forum. Thus the complainant has proper jurisdiction to file the case before us as he has filed.

           In view of the discussion made herein above it is held and decided that the complainant filed the case before correct jurisdiction. So the case is maintainable but not for want of cause of action for the relief he claimed.

             As result, the issue No.3 on the point of jurisdiction is allow in favour of the complainant but the rest issues are held against him which as a whole leads us to dismiss the case.

             Hence,

                          Ordered,

                                           That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.