Date of filing:- 07/10/2015.
Date of Order:- 26/10/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 58 of 2015
Bandobast Pradhan, son of Madhaba Pradhan, aged about 58(fifty eight) years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o Bhalupali Po and Po/Ps. Attabira Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Indrabati Motors-Cum-Swaraj Tractor, represented by N.P.Prasad, M.D. of Swaraj
Tractors-Cum-Indrabati Motors Bargarh having its permanet place of business situated at Canal avenue, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh
..... ...... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri S.P.Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri H.C.Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.26/10/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-
The complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint comprised here under.
The Complainant being the permanent resident of village Bhalupali under Ps/Po. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh had purchased one Swaraj Tractor bearing Model No. 843XM-3CYM, Engine No. FCRJR10022, Chassis No. WVTG-78619776642 for a total consideration price of Rs. 6,02,843/-(Rupees six lakh two thousand eight hundred forty three)only from the Opposite Party who happens to be manufacturing company of Swaraj Tractors.
The Complaint contends that the total sell price was paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party in two folds, being financed by the State Bank of India, Attabir. In first fold on Dt.24/07/2015 an amount of Rs.3,02,843/-(Rupees three lakh two thousand eight hundred forty three)only and in second fold on Dt.03/08/2015 an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh)only by way of bank deposit. That on Dt.03/08/2015 invoice bearing No. IM-R/35/15-16 was issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant and by virtue of this purchase and issuance of invoice for total consideration price by the Opposite Party, the Complainant becomes the consumer of the Opposite Party.
The complaint further contends that it was a guarantee condition of finance of the tractor that the accessories like hood ,hook and bumper will be supplied free of cost by the Opposite Party to the complaint which find place in the invoice issued to the complainant by the Opposite Party. Further complaint reveals that the Opposite Party is adopting unfair and restrictive trade practice during supply of tractor to the purchasers by increasing the actual price of the tractor and declaring to give more subsidy as compare to the other tractor companies and on believing the oral testimony of the dealer the consumers are influenced and purchase the Swaraj Tractor, what complainant has done in his case.
Further the complaint contends that as per the agricultural subsidy given by the Director of Agriculture and food production Bhubaneswar and letter issued by the Asst. Agriculture Officer, Attabira Block for Swaraj Tractor bearing Model No. 843-XM-3CYL, the total cost of the alleged model of tractor is Rs.6,00,435/-(Rupees six lakh forty hundred thirty five)only and as per the declaration of Director of Agriculture and Foood Production, Bhubaneswar, the Complainant is entitled for subsidy amount of Rs. 90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only and after deduction of subsidiary benefit the Complainant is entitled to pay Rs. 5,10,435/-(Rupees five lakh ten thousand four hundred thirty five)only to the Opposite Party but Opposite Party adopting unfair and restrictive trade practice has increased the price of the tractor and has taken Rs.6,02,835/-(Rupees six lakh two thousand eight hundred thirty five)only in excess of the actual price.
Further more the complaint contends that, the Opposite Party has deceived the Complainant by extracting more money form the Complainant towards sale of alleged Swaraj Tractor to him. More particularly the Opposite Party again demanded an amount of Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only for the supply of hood to the Complainant which was to be supplied free of cost. For such acts of Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered from serious degradation in health condition and that the Complainant many time visited the office of the Opposite Party at Bargarh and requested him to supply hood, hook, bumper etc and also to provide subsidy benefit granted by the Director of Agriculture and Food Production, Bhubaneswar to which the Opposite Party remained silent and ultimately on Dt.05/10/2015 the Opposite Party declared not to take any step in any manner to the request of the complainant. That such acts of Opposite Party towards the Complainant is unfair and restrictive trade practice and the Complainant has sought for the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party to give Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only towards excess price received towards sale of the tractor to the Complaint and compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses to the Complainant besides any equitable remedies and relief.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents.
Receipt Dt.24/07/2015 issued by the Indrabati Motors, Bargarh infavour of the Complainant.
Loan pass book bearing No. 35098123804 of State Bank of India, Attabira in the name of Complainant.
Invoice issued by the Indrabati Motors bearing Sl. No.IMR/35/15-16 dated 03/08/2015 infavour of the Complainant.
Letter of declaration issued by the Asst. Agriculture Office, Attabira Block, Attabira infavour of the Complainant.
Being noticed the Opposite Parties appeared through his counsels and filed his version denying all the allegations of the complaint.
The version of the Opposite Party contends that, the Complainant in order to avails Swaraj Tractor bearing Model No. 843-XM-4CYL obtained a quotation from the office of the Opposite Party and on request of the Complainant the Opposite Party on Dt.24/07/2015 supplied the above model tractor to the Complainant and accordingly issued retail invoice on Dt.03/08/2015 to State Bank of India, Attabira. Further version contends that the retail invoice issued by the Opposite Party on Dt.03/08/2015 clearly shows that the cost of the vehicle(Tractor) was Rs.6,92,843/-(Rupees six lakh ninety two thousand eight hundred forty three)only and out of that discount was provided for an amount of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only and after deduction of the same Rs.6,02,843/-(Rupees six lakh two thousand eight hundred forty three)only received from the Complainant.
The version of the Opposite Party specifically denied the allegation of the complaint that as per the scheme of Director, Agriculture and Food Production, Bhubaneswar the Asst. Agriculture Office, Attabira Block, Attabira issued letter in favour of the Complainant for the subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only for the purchase of the alleged tractor and after deduction of the same the cost of the vehicle comes to the tune of Rs.5,10,435/-(Rupees five lakh ten thousand four hundred thirty five)only but playing foul and adopting restrictive trade practice the Opposite Party has received an amount of Rs.92,799/-(Rupees nine two thousand seven hundred ninety nine)only in excess from the Complainant and that by such act of deceiving by the Opposite Party the Complainant was mentally perturbed and disturbed and was unable to follow his daily persuits and put to mental agony, for which the Complainant sustained heavy financial loss for his medical treatment and that it was moral condition between the Complainant and Opposite Party that the Opposite Party ought to have supplied hood ,hook and bumper free of cost ,which was not affixed with the tractor at the time of supply to the Complainant and the Opposite Party under took to supply the same in near future and the Opposite Party later on demanded Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only for the supply of hood etc and that at last on Dt.05/10/2015 when the Complainant requested to do the need full for the above subsidy amount and to supply the hood etc free of cost the Opposite Party adamantly declared not to take any step or supply hood to the Complainant and further directed the Complainant to do what ever he likes and the Opposite Party has contended in his version that all those allegations are false. That the Opposite Party in his version contends that there is no cause of action to file this complaint and the Complainant is not entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-(Rupees one lakh fifty thousand)only from the Opposite Party hence the Opposite Party prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint being devoid of any merit.
The Opposite Party filed Retail Invoice issued by the Indrabati Motors Dt.03/08/2015 infavour of the Complainant.
Gone through the entire case record, pleadings of the Parties, Memo of argument and citations filed by the Parties and heard argument from both the Parties, the Forum found the points of dissension between the Parties as follows:-
Although the complainant was entitled for subsidy amount of Rs.90,000/-(Rupees ninety thousand)only as per the declaration of Directorate of Agriculture, Govt. of Odisha on the alleged model of tractor purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has not deducted the subsidy amount from the actual price of the tractor while receiving the price of the tractor from the Complainant.
The Complainant although was orally promised by the Opposite Party to supply, Hood, Hook, Bumper free of cost has not supplied the same and later on when Complainant requested the Opposite Party to supply hood, hook, bumper free of cost, the Opposite Party demanded Rs. 7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only for that.
For such acts of Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered mental agony for which his B.P. and Sugar level increased and he has to bear medical expenses for that.
The retail invoice No. IM-R/35/15-16 Dt.03/08/2015 has been filed and relied upon by both the Complainant and the Opposite Party and on perusal of the same by the Forum, it is found a less discount of the Rs.90,000/-(Rupees nine thousand)only has been deducted by the Opposite Party from the total sale price i.e. Rs.6,92,843/-(Rupees six lakh ninety two thousand eight hundred forty three)only and after deduction invoice for Rs. 6,02,543/-(Rupees six lakh two thousand five hundred forty three)only has been issued and the Complainant has paid the same amount to the Opposite in two installments. The declaration letter issued by the Asst. Agriculture Officer, Attabira block is also reveals that the subsidy received by self i.e. by the Complainant. So this contention of Opposite Party that the Opposite Party has taken an excess of Rs.92,843/-(Rupees ninety two thousand eight hundred forty three)only from the complainant to sale the tractor is not acceptable and rejected by the forum.
Secondly this invoice Dt.03/08/2015 reveals that Hood, Hook and Bumper were supplied free of cost and not included in the cost of the tractor and the Complainant has endorsed in that invoice putting his signature that he has received the above items in good condition to his full satisfaction. Further allegation that the Opposite Party claimed Rs.7,000/-(Rupees seven thousand)only from the Complainant to supply hood, hook and bumper etc is not supported by any documentary evidence, hence this contention of the Complainant is also not accepted by the Forum and rejected the same.
Thirdly for such acts of Opposite Party, the Complainant was put to mental agony for which his BP and Sugar level increased and he has to bear medical expenses for it, for this allegation and contention, the complaint has not supported with any documentary evidence, hence the same is also not acceptable and rejected by the Forum.
That as per the discussion made above, the allegations of the Complainant as to unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice by the Opposite Party against the Complainant is not established in any manner to take the benefit of redressal under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986.
The citations field on behalf of the Opposite Party i.e. AIR 2007 SC Page 2380 and 2011(9) SCC Page 126 have been thoroughly perused by the Forum which are applicable in this case as the allegations of Complaint is not substantiated in any way by the Complainant in clean hand.
Delving deep into the matter of the complaint at hand, the Forum order as under.
O R D E R
The Complaint being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.
Complaint disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
I agree, I agree,
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r(w). P r e s i d e n t.
