STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
(Appeal No.395 of 2018)
Asharfi Singh, S/O- Late Debi Singh, resident of Jafar Nagar, P.S.- Muffasil, P.O.- & District- Munger.
……………….. Appellant
Versus
- Niraj Sharma, Authorized Dealer-Cum- Proprietor International Tractor, Purabsarai, Munger.
- Personal Manager, Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Mumbai Puna Road, Akdui, Patna.
- Branch Manager, Central Bank of India Jamalpur Branch, Munger.
….......... Respondents
Counsel for the appellant:- Mr. Nandlal Sinha.
Counsel for the Respondent no.2:- Mr. Ramesh Kumar Choubey
Counsel for the Respondent no.3:- Binod Bihari Sinha
BEFORE:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
ORDER
Date: 28.08.2023
Per: Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Present appeal has been filed on behalf of the Complainant/Appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Learned District Consumer Forum, Munger in complaint case no.24 of 2012 whereby and where under complaint case has been dismissed.
Briefly Stated the fact of the case is that complainant had purchased Tractor on 02.07.2005 after obtaining loan from opposite party no.3 (Central Bank of India) and as surety for the loan complainant had mortgaged his land. The documents and paper of purchased Tractor was not handed over to complainant i.e. Sale letter, operation manual, service Book etc. and same was promised to be provided after one week.
It is further alleged that while taking the purchased Tractor from show room to residence problem started in gear Box due to sub-standard parts fitted in Tractor. Complainant thereafter went to opposite party no.2 (Neeraj Sharma Proprietor of International Trader, Munger) on 12.07.2005 along with the co-villagers and informed about problem in vehicle as well as demanded paper of vehicle. Opposite party no.2 assured that all problem in vehicle will be resolved and thereafter papers of vehicle will be provided. However neither fault in vehicle was removed nor document of vehicle were provided.
Legal notices were send to opposite parties on 07.03.2006 but no reply was received.
Complainant also informed opposite party no.3 that his vehicle has not been registered as such he will not repay the loan amount. He is ready to return the vehicle but no action was taken on behalf of opposite party no.3.
Complainant thereafter filed a complaint case in the Court of C.J.M, Munger being complaint case no.770/2006 and also filed pre-litigation case no.29/2008 in Lok Adalat on 16.05.2008. Opposite party no.3 came to his residence and asked to withdraw the complaint and told that if he deposits Rs.2,25,000/- against demand notice dated 23.02.2008 he will issue “ no dues certificate”. He thereafter deposited the amount on 23.07.2008 and also withdrew both cases on 16.09.2008 but he was not given “ No due certificate Rs.40,000/- was again demanded and he deposited Rs.40,000/- on 31.12.2009 but still no dues was not given. Subsequently, on 19.12.2011 demand notice for Rs.3,26,000/- was sent to him.
It was further stated that in absence of documents of vehicle he could not get the vehicle registered causing pecuniary loss to him and thereafter filed consumer complaint case for grant of compensation for pecuniary loss as well as physical and mental harassment and cost of litigation.
Notices were issued to opposite parties for their appearance and to file their written statement.
Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed its written Statement stating that complainant has filed this case after lapse of warranty period. Allegation made are baseless and false.
Opposite party no.3 in its written statement stated that complainant had approached him for agricultural loan to purchase tractor and thereafter obtaining Co-lateral surety he sanctioned the loan amount. A cheque amount of Rs.4,26,325/- was issued in the name of opposite party no.2 and Tractor with all its accessories was delivered to complaint in good condition with ownership documents.
Complainant did not pay a single instalment of loan amount and after demand notice dated 23.02.2008 complainant deposited Rs.2,25,000/- on 23.07.2008 and Rs.40,000/- on 31.12.2009 and thereafter complainant never came to deposit loan instalment and again notice was issued to deposit loan amount by 19.12.2011. Complainant served a legal notice on 30.12.2011 through his advocate that the tractor which was delivered to him was defective and parts were substandard and duplicate. Complainant did not lodge any complainant with respect to defect in tractor for 6 years. Bank issues no dues certificate only after repayment of full loan amount. Complainant is finding excuse not to repay the loan amount.
The District Consumer Forum, after considering the material available on record held that complainant purchased tractor on 02.07.2005 after obtaining loan from opposite party no.3. Complainant has alleged defect in tractor but first legal notice was given to opposite party no.1 on 07.03.2006 but registry receipts filed does not bear any date. Complainant filed case in Lok Adalat when demand notice was issued by opposite party no.3 on 23.02.2008.
Complainant purchased tractor on 02.07.2005 but first instalment dues was deposited on 23.07.2008 of Rs.2,25,000/- and on 31.12.2009 of Rs.40,000/- which shows that complainant was a defaulter and loan amount was partly deposited only after demand notice. This District Consumer Forum further held that complainant received the Tractor after being fully satisfied of its good and running condition.
The District Consumer Forum dismissed the complaint case as complainant failed to established any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties.
Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24.07.2018 passed by learned District Consumer Forum, Munger in complaint case no.24 of 2012 complainant as preferred this appeal before the State Commission.
It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that there were sufficient evidence before the District Consumer Forum to establish deficiency in service by the opposite parties in not handing over the document causing loss and mental agony to complainant. The vehicle could not be registered in absence of documents as such complainant could not ply the vehicle on road causing pecuniary loss. No dues certificate was not granted to the complainant. The District Consumer Forum wrongly inferred that complainant has filed complaint with bad intention to grab the loan amount.
On the other hand counsel for the respondents have supported the impugned judgment and order and submits that impugned order is well reasoned and well considered and requires no interference by the State Commission in appeal.
Heard the parties.
The Tractor was purchased by the complainant in the year 2005 on loan sanctioned by the Respondent-Bank and complainant took delivery of the Tractor, Trailer and other equipments after recording his satisfaction with respect to good and running condition of the Tractor. No complaint was ever made either to the dealer or to the company with respect to any defect in the purchased Tractor during the warranty period. Complainant did not pay any instalment to the Bank and only when demand notice was issued for payment of loan amount failing which coercive action will be taken for realization of loan amount, complainant partly paid the loan amount and also filed complaint case alleging delivery of defective and sub-standard Tractor, however no evidence was produced by the complainant in the Consumer Forum to support such allegation of any defect in the Tractor. Complainant has to prove the allegations made in complaint petition by leading evidence, on basis of mere averment made in complaint petition no finding can be recorded. Complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.
There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.
A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the C.P. Act 2019. Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the State Commission.
Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.
Ram Prawesh Das Sanjay Kumar, J Member President
Mukund
