Date of Filing: 29.08.2013 Date of Final Order: 17.03.2015
The Complaint has been filed by Sri Dilip Kumar Sarkar, S/o. Late Profullya Sarkar alleging that he is a tiller and cultivation is the livelihood, having his permanent abode at Vill. Arampur, P.O. Balarampur, Dist. Cooch Behar, within the jurisdiction of the Forum.
The O.P. No.1 is an authorize dealer of New Holland Agriculture (Tractor) and carrying on his business within the jurisdiction of this Forum under name and style Sabita Automobiles, Cooch Behar and O.P. No.2 is a Union Bank of India.
The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the record, is that the complainant wanted to purchase one new tractor for his cultivation and accordingly he went to the O.Ps showroom on 1st part of June 2011, but because paucity of funds approached to the O.P. No.1 for financial assistant. After knowing such fact of No.1 told to the complainant, if he wants to take loan for purchasing Holland Tractor, in that event the O.P. No.1 make arrangement from Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch within a very short period.
Thereafter on 14-06-2011, the complainant further went to the office of the O.P. No.1 i.e. Sabita Automobiles, for purchasing the new Holland Tractor, Model No.3600-2, (51 HP) and made payment of booking amount of Rs.50,000/- in 4 occasions, (i) Rs.10,000/- on 14-06-2011, (ii) Rs.10,000/- on 15-06-2011, (iii) Rs.19,000/- on 16-06-2011, and (iv) Rs.11,000/- on 17-06-2011. After making payment the O.P issued money receipt to the complainant i.e. booking slip.
Afterwards the complainant applied to Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch, through the O.P. No.1 praying an agricultural loan for purchasing new Holland Tractor, Model No.3600-2, (51 HP) and on his approach the Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar Branch sanctioned a loan to the complainant sum of Rs.7,13,592/-.
At the time of sanctioning the said loan the O.P. No.1, i.e. M/S Sabita Automobiles, Prop. Sri Sudip Rudra, manage to obtain some signatures of the complainant on blank non-judicial stamp papers of Rs.10/- and Rs.50/- and some conquest papers, some printed forms and also numbers of blank cheques. The complainant is an illiterate person.
Since, the complainant is a simple man having no knowledge and worldly affairs and also having no knowledge of English language. As such he could not make out the future consequential effect of his signatures on the blank papers, printed form, blank cheques etc. the complainant on almost good faith put his signatures on those papers specifically when the O.P. No.1, assured him that as per norms and procedure for sanctioning the loan.
After completion of all payment (including insurance, Road Tax), of Rs.7,13,592/- + Rs.16,000/- = Rs.7,29,592/- the authorized dealer i.e. Sabita Automobiles, delivered on New Holland Tractor, under chassis No.7178775, Engine No.16771 to the complainant on 16-09-2011 and the said vehicle (Tractor) was duly registered bearing No.WB-63/6217 authenticated by the R.T.O, Cooch Behar and subject to hypothecation in favour of Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar. The complainant purchased the said tractor due to maintain his livelihood and the O.Ps assured to the complainant that, they will render proper service towards the complainant. At the time of taking Tractor the O.P. No.1 did not issued/handed over any Invoice paper, Insurance Policy and Registration Certificate, only issued a Kacha Receipt to the complainant.
After delivering the said tractor, the complainant started to use the same in his agricultural land and found that it was not working properly due to defects in its machinery. On scrutiny it was detected that the said Tractor was neither Model No.3600-2, nor 51-HP. It is a Tractor of Model No.4710 and 47-HP, and as such it was not working properly. At the time of booking the complainant booked New Holland Tractor, Model No.3600-2, 51-HP.
Meanwhile, the complainant reported the said matter several times to the O.P. No.1 i.e. authorize dealer of New Holland and the O.P. No.2 and also requested to replace the defective tractor by a new tractor which was mentioned in the booking slip. But the O.Ps did not pay any heed towards the complainant.
In the long run on 03-10-2011 the complainant filed a written complaint before the office of the O.P. No.1 for replacing the said tractor but no any response has got on the part of the O.Ps.
Presently, the complainant is in hard-up and facing irreparable loss due to manufacturing of the said tractor and did not supply the tractor as per the specification of the booking slip.
Hence filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the Opposite Parties (i) to change the tractor of as per specification of the booking slip or refund of value of tractor, (ii) Rs.50,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, (iii) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental pain, agony and unnecessary harassment, (iv) Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for non-production of crops & (v) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
The O.P. No.1, M/S. Sabita Automobiles has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia the case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to bring the case.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.1 that the original fact of the case is that when the O.P. No.1 demanded his outstanding dues from the complainant through cheque which has been issued by the complainant and when the O.P. No.1 place the said cheque before the bank for clearance. At that time it seen that the issued cheque returned by the complainant account for insufficient balance and thereafter the O.P filed one case U/S 138 of N.I. Act which has been pending before the J.M 2nd Court and for this reason intentionally and for squeeze some money the complainant filed this case against this answering O.P. No.1. Ultimately, the complaint has claimed for dismissal of the case.
The O.P. No.2, Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar has contested the case denying all material allegation of the complaint contending inter-alia the case is not maintainable and defect of parties.
It is the specific case of the O.P. No.2 that the complainant purchased one New Holland Tractor from the O.P. No.1 through financial assistance of Union Bank of India. Cooch Behar. The Complainant falsely implicated the O.P. No.2 in this case because the O.P. No.2 only the financier of the tractor which has been purchased from the O.P. No.1 after completion of all formality. Lastly, the O.P. No.2 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In the light of the contention of the complainant, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the Opposite Parties any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused the entire documents in the record also heard the argument by the parties.
Point No.1.
The complainant purchased the said tractor from the O.P. No.1 on payment of Rs.7,29,592/- after taking financial help from the O.P. No.2. So the complainant is a customer under the O.Ps.
Point No.2.
Both the O.Ps have office within this jurisdiction of the Forum and total valuation is Rs.9,39,592/- which is far less than maximum pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum i.e. Rs.20,00,000/-. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No.3 & 4.
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant, Dilip Kr. Sarkar for purchasing New Holland Tractor, Model No.3600-2 (51-HP) paid Rs.40,000/- to the O.P. No.1, Sabita Automobiles and applied for loan before the O.P. No.2, Union Bank of India, Cooch Behar and the bank authority sanctioned Rs.7,13,592/- to him and he took delivery of one New Holland Tractor on 16-09-2011 on payment of total Rs.7,29,592/-.
It appears from the money receipt dated 14-06-2011, 15-06-2011, 16-06-2011 & 17-06-2011 (Annexure ‘A-Series’) and Kacha Receipt dated 08-11-2011 (Annexure-B) that the complainant paid Rs.7,13,592/- to the O.P. No.1 for purchasing tractor. The O.P. No.1 & 2 have not denied said fact of purchasing tractor by the complainant from the O.P. No.1 at assistant of the O.P. No.2.
Main dispute of the present case is that the complainant is claiming that inspite of delivery of tractor Model No.3600-2 (51-HP), Model No.4710 (47-HP) was delivered to him, which has not been working properly.
The letter dated 03-10-2011 (Annexure-D) reveals that the complainant filed an application before the O.P. No.1 alleging that he had book New Holland Tractor Model No.3600-2 (51-HP) but Model No.4710 (47-HP) was delivered to him.
But on scrutiny of the Money Receipt, we find that there is no mention of any model number, Kacha Receipt (Annexure-B) which is the most vital document of the case shows that Model No.4710 has been shown there. Road Challan dated 16-09-2011 (Annexure-C) issued by the O.P. No.1 also shows that Model No.4710 (47-HP) has been shown there. Xerox certified copy of the loan application Form dated 21-10-2011, quatation submitted by the O.P. No.1 and Tax invoice issued by the O.P. No.1 also show that there Model No.4710 (47-HP) has been shown there.
The complainant filed a leaflet, issued by New Holland Tractor, which shows picture of a blue colour tractor of New Holland having Model No.3600-2 (51-HP). But there is nothing to show that said leaflet has any connection with the present case.
So, it is crystal clear that all the documents filed by the parties are related to Model No.4710 (47-HP), New Holland Tractor and the complainant has failed to produce any paper to show that he practically purchased the tractor having Model No.3600-2 (51-HP) but instead of Model No.3600-2 (51-HP), Model No.4710 (47-HP) was delivered to him.
During argument Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant submitted a copy of order passed by Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal in Case No.FA/462/2010 dated 05-05-2011 where instead of delivering Power Tiller of 18-HP, Power Tiller of 15-HP was delivered to the complainant and the said case was allowed by Ld. District Forum and on appeal said order was confirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission.
But in the present case, we have already came to conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove that instead of Model No.3600-2 (51-HP), Model No.4710 (47-HP) tractor was supplied to him. So, the said ruling is not applicable in this case.
He also filed Xerox copy of the another final order passed by this Forum in Case No. DF/40/2008. There also the complainant was able to prove that instead of 2200 RPM & 18-HP Power Tiller, Power Tiller of 2200 RPM & 15-HP was supplied to him. So, said order is not applicable in this case.
So, practically the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and the case is liable to be dismissed.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the case No. DF/97/2013 be and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.2,000/- payable by the complainant to the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be supplied, free of cost, to the concerned parties/Ld. Advocate by hand/be sent under Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
