SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Ops claiming compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in short, is that he purchased one New Holland Model-4710 tractor bearing Engine No.SJ327A37158 and Chassis No.NHN47100ZJJ440988 on payment of Rs.8,20,000/- along with Hood, Hitch, Tool Kit, Battery, Warranty Card, operating manual, Warranty Book, Ignition Key, Fuel Tank key and Tap link from the OP No.1 as per delivery challan dated 16.11.2018 wherein the price of the tractor was not mentioned. The OP No.1 did not provide Registration paper, Insurance, permit, fitness except the unfilled warranty card and had taken additional amount of Rs.70,000/- without any receipt thereof. The OP No.1 had taken in total Rs.8,90,000/- from the complainant without any tax invoice, but it was shown as financed from CHN Industrial Capital, who is a stranger to the complainant nor he has availed any financial assistance from this institute. The OP No.1 has mischievously prepared the above paper. It is further stated that although the tractor was delivered on 16.11.2018, it was registered before R.T.A., Balasore on 16.1.2019 vide No.OD-01AA-7375. Similarly, money for insurance was taken by the OP No.1 on 16.11.2018, but the vehicle was insured on 2.1.2019 which was valid up to 1.1.2020 vide Policy No.2316702583187700000 of OP No.2. The above insurance policy showed the price of the tractor to be Rs.7,50,500/- as IDV.
It is further stated by the complainant that while his tractor was husking paddy in the house of his uncle on 31.3.2019, all of a sudden the engine of the tractor burst and gutted with fire caused due to manufacturing defect of the tractor. The complainant has reported the matter to the IIC, Basudevpur PS. Fire brigade appeared but could not protect the tractor. Thereafter, as per advice of the Fire Station, Basudevpur, he reported the matter before Fire Station, Tihidi on 20.4.2019, who visited the spot and prepared spot report. The matter was intimated to the OP No.1 & 2 claiming loss and damages. OP No.1 assured him to arrange for the damage and advised to bring the burnt and damaged tractor to him so that he will repair the tractor and will make arrangements for other damages covered under insurance policy from OP No.2 & 3. Accordingly, the complainant brought the burnt and damaged tractor from Basudevpur to the yard of OP No.1 spending Rs.16,000/- on 10.8.2019. At that time, the OP No.1 compelled the complainant to sign an undertaking to receive the damaged tractor. Thereafter, the OP No.1 neither repaired the tractor nor claimed insurance from the OP No.2 & 3. The alleged incident had occurred within the warranty period and within the coverage of insurance policy, but the OP No.1 had not taken any step to replace the said tractor with a new one by playing unfair trade practice. Due to the above overt act of the Ops, the complainant sustained financial loss so also suffered mental agony. On the repeated approach made by the complainant, the OP No.1 has neither replaced nor repaired the tractor and thereby harassed him. Further, OP No.2 & 3 have also not listen to the complainant. Lastly, on 1.2.2020, the OP No.1 turned down the request of the complainant either to replace the burnt/damaged tractor or repair the same. By this attitude of the Ops, the complainant sustained mental agony so also financial loss. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the present case.
The cause of action for the case arose on 31.3.2019, when the tractor of the complainant was burnt due to blast of the engine. Hence, this case.
3. OP No.1 made his appearance and filed his written version challenging the cause of action and maintainability of the case. OP No.1 has denied the averments made in the complaint. It is stated, inter alia, that the complainant had taken quotation for purchase of the tractor from their firm and he himself approached OP No.4 for the purpose and the OP No.4 had provided loan of Rs.5,80,000/- along with processing and documentation charges amounting to Rs.8,024/- and thereafter the complainant agreed to purchase the tractor from OP No.1 firm. The complainant had neither completed the financial process nor returned back the tractor to the OP No.1 till 30.12.2018. The OP No.4 had paid Rs.5,71,976/- to the OP No.1 and the complainant paid Rs.80,000/- only in the shape of cost of his old tractor which he had sold to OP No.1 which was taken towards down payment and accordingly, the OP No.1 had received Rs.6,91,976/- for the new tractor. On receipt of the delivery order from OP No.4 on 31.12.2018, the OP No.1 called the complainant to pay the due amount for the purpose of registration of the tractor, but he did not pay any heed. Still then the OP No.1 had registered the said vehicle on 16.1.2019. Although the insurance policy showed the price of the tractor total IDV Rs.7,50,000/-, but the OP No.1 had received only Rs.6,51,976/- and the rest amount is to be paid by the complainant. The alleged incident, as narrated by the complainant, caused due to mishandling the tractor. It is further stated that the complainant himself had brought the burnt tractor to OP No.1 and submitted undertaking voluntarily admitting for claiming insurance. Further, the claim of the insurance made by the complainant in respect of the said burnt tractor is pending disposal before the OP No.2 & 3 and not yet disposed of. In the above premises, filing of the present case is not at all warranted.
4. OP No.2 & 3 appeared and filed their joint written version stating, inter alia, that they have not yet received any claim under the insurance policy from the complainant. Further, they are not aware about the ownership of the vehicle under dispute nor about the alleged incident. It is admitted that their company had issued the policy in question in favour of the complainant for damage covering Rs.7,50,500/- and the policy was valid from 2.1.2019 till 1.1.2020 and a premium of Rs.3081/- was received by their Company. For the above latches on the part of the complainant, the matter could not be finalized.
5. OP No.4 appeared and filed written version stating that the complainant had purchased the alleged tractor from their authorized dealer OP No.1 availing financial assistance from NNH Capital Finance Limited and the OP No.2 issued motor insurance policy. The main intention of the complainant to approach the OP No.2 to pay off the policy claim and thus, this OP is no way liable for the same. Further, OP No.4 is manufacturer of the product and carrying its business through its authorized dealers. Therefore, this OP has unnecessarily dragged into the arena of the present complaint.
6. In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?
(ii) Whether this consumer case is maintainable?
(iii) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
(iv) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(v) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
7. On perusal of the documents relied on by the respective parties, it is came to light that the complainant had purchased the vehicle in question from the firm of OP No.1, who is the authorized dealer of OP No.4, on 2.1.2019 vide Challan No.80 for an amount of Rs.7,90,000/-. The signature of the complainant is found to have been affixed on the said Tax Invoice. The delivery challan bearing No.80 filed by the OP No.4 reflected that on 2.1.2019, OP No.1 delivered the alleged vehicle in favour of the complainant wherein the complainant put his signature. That apart, the money receipt dated 2.1.2019 shows that the complainant had incurred loan for purchase of his alleged tractor from CNH Industrial Capital (India) Private Limited wherein it is also found that the complainant had put his signature. Further, from the VAHAN (National Register e-Services), it is made out that the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-01AA-7375, Agricultural Tractor bearing Engine No. SJ327A37158, Chassis No.NHN47100ZJJ440988 registered on 16.1.2019 stands in the name of the complainant which was hypothecated by the Financer CHN Industrial Capital (India) Private Limited insured by OP No.2 vide Policy No.2316202583187700000 valid till 1.1.2020 and the fitness was valid up to 15.1.2034. Further, the Policy Bond provided by OP No.2 clearly speaks that the vehicle in question of the complainant was insured on 2.1.2019 and valid up to 1.1.2020 and the complainant was the nominee in respect of that policy bond. On the other hand, the complainant has relied on a delivery challan dated 16.11.2018 wherein the number of the challan has not been mentioned. No doubt, from the documents relied on by the complainant, it is made out that while the alleged tractor was engaged with paddy work gutted with fire and the fire fighter engaged in extinguishing the fire the complainant lodged written report before the Basudevpur PS and Fire Office, Tihidi. But the spot report, submitted by the complainant, does not reflect who has prepared the same and the purpose of its preparation and to whom it was submitted. From the undertaking submitted by the complainant, it is found that he has submitted his tractor at OP No.1 firm for insurance claim and some parts are missing in respect of the above tractor mentioning therein the missing parts.
8. From the above discussion, it is crystal clear that the complainant had purchased the tractor on hire purchase being financed by CNH Industrial Capital (India) Private Limited from the firm of OP No.1, who is the authorized dealer of OP No.4. It is also found that alleged vehicle of the complainant was duly insured with OP No.2-Insurance Company. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had mentioned in his written FIR submitted before the Basudevpur PS so also before the Fire Officer, Tihidi that while the alleged tractor was engaged in paddy work in village Lunga, Nuasahi in the house of Upendra Mallik caught fire in its engine. Therefore, the story as narrated by the complainant in his complaint that he had purchased the tractor on payment of cash, not taken any financial assistance from any one, the OP No.2 & 3 are stranger to him, no document relating to the vehicle was provided to him, late registration of the vehicle, OP No.1 prepared the insurance paper on a later date, suddenly the tractor was blasted while it was engaged in paddy work, he had brought the burnt tractor on the instruction of OP No.1, OP No.1 forcibly taken undertaking from him and he had not insured his vehicle are all found to have been concocted. The complainant, in the present case, has not come to this Commission in clean hand and filed the case suppressing the material facts and the reason is best known to him. Further, suppression of material facts by the complainant otherwise fatal to his own case. That apart, as claimed by the OP No.2 & 3, the complainant has not submitted any claim form along with the required documents before the Insurance Company for which his claim has not yet been settled. Therefore, the complainant has miserably failed to establish a case of deficiency in service against the Ops.
9. From the above discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant has no cause of action to file the case and the case is not maintainable. Consequently, the complaint, being devoid of merit, liable to be dismissed.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops. No order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 2nd day of December, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
