Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/101/2017

Krushna Chandra Nayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Laxmi Shree Agro - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKAAL

                                                 C.C.Case No. 101 of 2017

 

 Krushna Chandra Nayak,

S/o Padma Charan Nayak,

Vill/Po: Malapura, P.S: Kamakhyanagar,

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                  ….......Complainant

                                                                Versus

M/s Laxmi Shree Agro,

At/Po:  Korian Dhenkanal

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                   ….......Opp. Party

Present:  Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

                Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

Counsel: For the complainant: S.R.Dash & Associates

                  For the Opp. Party:  Shashi Bhusan Mishra

Date of hearing  argument: 28.5.2018

Date of order: 30.5.2018

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Sri Purna Chandra Mishra, Member

                The complainant has filed the present case U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party  praying therein for not repairing his tractor during warranty period  and  to award a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation and  for a  direction  to the O.P to remove the defects in the tractor.   

                1) Very briefly, the fact of the case  is  that   the complainant has purchased one Tractor on 1.6.2016 from the O.P bearing Chassis No  Chassis No. T15H056622 and Engine No. D15H010602   after payment   of full and final consideration.    The vehicle was used by the petitioner smoothly for a period of 9 to 10 months, but after that due to severe steering problem the vehicle was not able to move elsewhere and is  in a standstill position.  It is further stated that the complainant has purchased the tractor by availing loan and he has to clear up the loan by way of installment.  Due to the defect in the vehicle the complainant could not pay the installments regularly for which the loan amount is increasing day by day with higher rate of interest causing serious financial problem to the complainant.  The complainant informed the defect of the vehicle to the O.P so many times through cell phone and  e mail.  But the O.P though assured to solve remove the defects did not come forward or removed the defects.  The complainant finding no other alternative sent a pleader’s notice to the O.P.  Despite such notice the O.P also did not take any steps to remove the defects.  The complainant moved to the office of the O.P who did not take any steps for removal of defects rather misbehaved the complainant.   Due to the latches and deficiency in service of the Opp. Party the complainant sustained financial loss and also suffered from mental agony.  Therefore, the complainant finding no other alternative has come up before this Forum praying for the reliefs as prayed for in the petition.

                2) The Opp. Party appeared and filed his written version.  The Opp. Party in his written version has averred that when the complainant has purchased the tractor and while  registering  it  in the office of the Registering Authority, Dhenkanal  as claimed by him, he must have produced the documents relating to purchase, person from whom purchased and he might have obtained the required fitness, permit and insurance papers covering insurance of the vehicle.  The Tractor in question was never in the  stock of the O.P nor he  had ever sold the tractor in question to the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.  The complainant has purchased the tractor under the Biju Kalyan Jojana through the Office of Deputy Director of Horticulture, Dhenkanal getting subsidy for the same.  Accordingly, it is pleaded that the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

3)            On the aforesaid pleadings of the respective parties the only issue before us   is  whether the complainant has purchased the impugned tractor from the Opp. Party or not and whether the O.P has caused deficiency in service to the petitioner or not?

                It is the case of the complainant that he has purchased the tractor from the Opp. Party on 1.6.2016 on payment of consideration.  He has relied upon the copy of the retain invoice towards purchase of vehicle in question.   He has also repeated the same version in his evidence in chief and has prayed the Forum to mark that document as exhibit.  On perusal of the entire case record it  goes to show that he has not filed the copy of the retail invoice  and he has filed  only an unnamed quotation of the Opp. Party   dated 1.10.2016 which contains the signature of one Tapan Kumar Nayak and not the name of the complainant and it contains the seal of Axis Bank Ltd, Jiridamali Branch, Dhenkanal.  The complainant has filed the copy of the R.C.Book which goes to show that the vehicle has been financed by ICICI Bank, Dhenkanal and the date of registration is 21.3.2017 and the date of manufacture is 7/2016 which means the vehicle has been manufactured in month of July-2016.  The petitioner in his complaint petition has pleaded that the Chassis No. of the Tractor in question is T15H056622 and in the R.C.Book the Chassis No. is also T15H056622 and the Engine No. in the petition is D15H010602 and the engine No. is the same in the Registration Certificate.  

             On  the other hand  the O.P has filed the copy of the Registration Certificate from the Website of Regional Transport Authority, Dhenkanal.  The Chasis No. and Engine No. as stated in the complaint petition is the same in this statement.  On this statement the date of purchase of the tractor has been mentioned as 18.2.2017 and the name of the dealer has been mentioned as Bhagyashree Agro, Angul and the manufacturing month is mentioned as 7 and the manufacturing year has been mentioned as 2016 and the name of the owner  has been mentioned as Krushna Ch. Nayak, father Padmacharan Nayak, At: Malapura, Po: Baisingha, Dist: Dhenkanal and the name of the financier  has been mentioned as ICICI Bank Ltd, Dhenkanal Branch, Dhenkanal.  The Opp. Party has also  filed another document  from the office of the Deputy director, Horticulture, Dhenkanal wherein vide order No. 2486 dated 5.12.2016 a sum of Rs. 75,000/- has been sanctioned  to be released against purchase of tractor by Krushna Ch. Nayak in favour of M/s Bhagyashree Agro, Angul.   So it is crystal clear that the vehicle has been purchased from Bhagyashree Agro, Angul and has been registered with the competent authority and the vehicle was purchased only on 18.2.2017.  We are astonished how a tractor which was manufactured in the month of 07/2016 i.e. July-2016 was sold to the petitioner in the month of June-2016 i.e. one month prior to its production.  Therefore, the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle was purchased on 1.6.2016 is completely false and the subsequent complaints as regards to defects are only concocted stories having no base at all.  It is crystal clear from the documents on record that the complainant has filed a vexatious complaint against the Opp. Party without any cause of action and  hence the order.

                                                                                ORDER

                The complaint petition is dismissed on contest in the light of the observations made in the preceding paragraphs.   In the peculiar facts and circumstances parties are left to bear their own cost.

                Pronounced in the open Forum  on this 30^th day of May-2018.

 

(Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy)                         ( Sri Purna Chandra Mishra)

                Member                                                              Member