SRI NILAKANTHA PANDA, PRESIDENT

                The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s – 12 & 13 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986, read as U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019 of the new Act (here-in-after called as the “C.P. Act - 2019”), on dated 18/04/2016, alleging deficiency-in-service & unfair trade practice,on the event of fetching forged documents, by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Authorized Signatory – cum – Branch Manager, Odisha Gramya Bank (Kalinga Gramya Bank), Anko Branch, Rupsa, Balasore   and OP No.2 is Authorized Signatory – cum – the Proprietor, M/s National Motors, Januganja Golai, NH – 05, Balasore. That, as per the complaint petition the cause of action arose on dated 05/04/2016. 

                The case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that the complainant, in order to earn livelihood for maintain his family, approached the OP No.1 for sanction of a loan to purchase “tractor-in-question”, for above reason, from OP No.2. After due compliance of all formalities, OP No.1 sanctioned the loan in favour of the complainant to the tune of Rs.04, 34,000.00, against loan account no 414213024000001. To secure the loan amount, the complainant had to tender a fixed deposit amounting of Rs.02, 77,000.00, bearing FD Certificate serial no – KGFD-058573, dated 21/05/2014, along with a down payment amount of cash Rs 77, 000.00, in the bank of OP No.1. Thereafter, OP No.2 having been agreed with earlier, has submitted a quotation of Rs 05, 11, 000.00, for “tractor, trolley, rtovator & registration and insurance charges”. After due compliance, OP No.2 supplied, Sonalika International Tractor D-120 branded tractor, bearing Engine No.A13163 and Chassis No.KMGSV376098G, Hydraulic Trolley bearing Chassis No.SEP-04 and Rotavator 3’ J (P) bearing Chassis No.1306-SL-100-001142 to the complainant. It is further stated that on delivery of the above noted Tractor and Trolley, the OP No.2 has received total sum of Rs.5, 11,100.00 i.e. Rs.3, 96,000.00 towards the Tractor, Rs.65, 000.00 towards Hydraulic Trolley, Rs.40, 000.00 towards Rotavator and Rs.10, 000.00 towards Insurance & Registration of the Tractor and Trolley, as mentioned on the face of tax invoice bearing number 08, dated 22/05/2014. That in this specific case of the complainant, the OP No.2 has to provide the documents in respect of insurance and registration to the complainant so also to the OP No.1, the financer, but the OP No.2 has failed to supply the same to the complainant. The complainant approached the OP No.2 about the said matter time and again. But lastly, the complainant could able to know from the OP No.1 that OP No.2 has submitted a registration certificate / document, only, in respect of the Tractor and Trolley. Thereafter, the complainant took the photocopy of the registration certificate from the office of the OP No.1 with consent, which was submitted by the OP No.2 to OP No. 1, and contacted the office of RTO, Balasore to know the veracity of those documents, where from complainant came to know that the documents, which were submitted by OP No.2, are all false, fabricated, manufactured and forged one. That apart, the Ops have failed to furnish any documents with regard to the insurance of the Tractor and Trolley. Neither the Ops could place any insurance policy nor any insurance premiums paid receipt. Therefore, upon above circumstances the complainant could not able ply the above noted tractor and trolley without any valid insurance and registration documents and thereby he sustained a huge loss for which he was unable to repay the instalments of OP No.1 timely and regularly, as well as unable to earn his livelihood.

That it is further stated that it is the primary responsibility of the OP No.1, being a financer / banker, to verify, supervise and manage the actions of the OP No.2, and must have ensure & examine the authenticity of all related statutory formalities / documents, but surprisingly, for the reason best known to the OP No – 1, the OP No.1 remained silent throughout about “this matter” by seating over the said documents. That on the contrary, the OP No. 1 has insisted the complainant to repay the appropriate “loan dues” so also threatened him to seize / repossess the tractor and trolley forcibly.

Complainant has further stated that upon receipt of notice along with complaint petition from this Commission, the OP No.1 has illegally debited a sum of Rs.06, 355.00 from complainant’s account on dated 16/05/2016 without assigning any reason thereof. That apart, OP No.1 has also illegally adjusted a pre-matured sum of Rs.02,55,545.00 towards the loan amount out of the above said fixed deposit amount of Rs.02,00,000.00 which was about to mature on 21/02/2019 to a tune of Rs.03,06,655.00.

That during the above described scenario, while the instant complainant, runs from pillar to post, the OP No -2, has paid no heed to the complainant’s genuine demand to obtain the statutory documents to run the tractor. 

The above acts of the OPs speaks itself that, both the OPs joined their respective hands with a view to harass the complainant & gain their ill motive and therefore, both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for their negligence and illegalities committed towards the complainant. Thus, the complainant, having left with no other option, was constrained to file this case with the reliefs as sought for in his complaint petition. Hence, this case. Hence,    

The Complainant relied upon following documents:-

1. Xerox copy Registration Certificate bearing no RA 0387003.
2. Xerox copy Registration Certificate bearing no RA 0387004.
3. Xerox copy of Fixed Deposit Certificate bearing No KGFD 058573, dated 21/05/2014.
4. Xerox copy of Quotation of OP No – 2, dated 21/05/2014.
5. Xerox copy of Delivery Order of OP No -1 to OP No – 2, for release of said tractor to complainant.
6. Xerox copy of Kissan Credit Card Account statement, bearing no 414213024000001.
7. Xerox copy of delivery challan dated 22/05/2014, issued by OPN – 2 to complainant.
8. Xerox copy of Retail Invoice bearing no 08, dated 22/05/2014, issued to complainant.

That upon filling of this complaint petition, notice with copy of complaint petition was served upon the OP No - 1. The O.P No.1 appeared through its counsel but did not file any written version, despite praying for & allowed with sufficient numbers time on various occasions of hearing dates, as mentioned in the order sheet of the case record. That, so also throughout the hearing of the case matter the OP No -1, has not also turned up to file any W.V. / W.A. & did not participate in hearing argument and also did not file any document in its support.

That likewise the notice with complaint petition was served upon the OP No – 2, through RP-AD on 07/05/2016. The same was received back un-delivered, by this Commission, with a noting by postal authority as “REFUSED”, the same is  mentioned in the order sheet of the case record on dated 26/05/2016. Hence the notice to OP No – 2 is considered to be “sufficient” and was set Ex-Parte to this case matter.

That in view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)            Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 2019 & / or 1986?

(ii)           Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?

(iii)          Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?

(iv)          Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps to the Complainant?

(v)          Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?

(vi)          To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

Since all the above points are interrelated with each other, hence they are taken up together for sake of convenience to arrive at fair conclusion.

That it is an admitted & established fact that the present complainant being plunged under necessity of its earnings livelihood, had rushed to the OP No – 1, for a financial assistance to obtain a tractor-in-question, from OP No - 2 for above said reason.  That upon contact with both the OPs and exchanging talks, documents relating terms & conditions, the OP No – 1, sanctioned & released a loan amount of Rs 04, 34, 000/- against a security deposit of Fixed Deposit of Rs 02, 00, 000/-, as aforesaid. That along with the said released loan amount the instant complainant, adding upon a sum of Rs 77, 000/-, as down payment through OP No – 1, purchased a tractor, along with  trolley & a rotavator, from OP No – 2, being hypothecated with OP No – 1. The said tractor, trolley & rotavator was handed over to the complainant by OP No – 2, through a delivery challan dated 22/05/2014. That in addition to the prices of the Goods, the OP No – 2, charged an additional sum of Rs 10, 000/-, on the face of the retail invoice bearing serial no – 08, dated 22/05/2014, as expanses to be incurred for obtaining “Insurance & RTO registration” of the said tractor. That till this activity there is no dispute among the parties to this case matter and all information stated above are in commensuration with documents as submitted by the complainant. Hence, in this condition, it is concluded that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec 5(VI) of the C P Act.

That on getting the desired tractor, trolley & rotavator (Hear-in-after called as “tractor”), the complainant contacted the OP No – 2, for obtaining the un-said “Insurance & RTO papers” for plying, running & operating and enabling the said tractor as “on-road”. That it has been claimed through its complement petition that, the complainant has visited the premises of the OP No – 2, time and again to obtain those documents. That being unable to get those documents from OP No – 2, the instant complainant brought the matter to the notice of OP No – 1, which was also ended in fruit less. That it is to the dismay of the complainant that, till his last day of visit i.e. on dated 05/04/2016, the OP No -2, did not also fetch those documents, where from it is alleged by the complainant that the cause of action aroused there from.

That it has been evident from the quotation of OP No 2, vide No - I / 201, dated 21/05/2014 and comparing with the acknowledgement of OP No – 1, in the shape & mode of delivery order for the tractor, that a sum of Rs 10, 000/-, has been collected along with the tractor value, which is ultimately, either directly paid by the complainant out of down payment, or, through / lieu out of loan as granted to the complainant by the OP No -1. That despite “payment” made, by the complainant by any of the modes as aforesaid, for the “Insurance and RTO Documents”, the instant complainant did not get the same from none of the OPs. Hence it is determined that the present case filled before this Commission against the OPs, is within the permitted scope of the CP Act, hence it is maintainable under this Act.

This Commission, carefully perused all the documents, one by one, annexed with the Complaint petition vis-à-vis the submissions of the compliant during the hearing of the case matter. That examining the very first two documents, i.e. the copies of registration certificates, annexed with both original petition & amended petition (Endorsed by OP No – 1), in connection to the para 13 of both the said petitions, this commission is quite surprised to notice the document to be fake & forgery, as under.

That for better perusal of the fact, this commission relied upon the copies of registration certificates annexed with amended petition filled by the complainant on dated 10/12/2019, for the valid reason that the same are seen to endorsed by the OP No – 1, who is Financing Bank.

That this commission not being a technically expert, but on viewing with a common eye, it is observed that the Letter Font of the name of the “Banking Concern” with whom the complainant had entered with an agreement i.e. “ODISHA GRAYMA BANK, ANKA BRANCH RUPSA”, does not match with that of any of the other information typed / written in connection to the complainant and / or the tractor in question. Besides this, if one would compare the Banking Name printed in both the certificates, which are in serial, then one naked eye can reach at the conclusion of the forge, by seeing letter size & font.

That upon going through the serial numbers of the two certificates, it is seen that they are in serials, one is RA 03873003 & other is RA 03873004, and registered on same date i.e. 27/06/2014. But the most surprising fact that, these two certificates are issued / signed by TWO different “RTO – MVIs”, on same date. This is evident with a normal vision of the signature put at the bottom of the certificates. Here, a question arises, were there two RTOs in Balasore on that particular date? That while judgement order was under preparation, the complainant, filled a “Call-For” petition and requested this Commission to seek clarification / information in context to the vehicle numbers (Tractor = OD-01-E-2044 & Trolley / Traler = OD-01-E- 2045) as mentioned in the aforesaid certificates, from the concern “RTO – MVI”, which was sought for, on dated 02/02/2023. This Commission received information from local RTO office on dated 16/02/2023, vide their letter no 796, dtd 10/02/2023, in connection to the vehicle bearing number OD-01-E-2044 & OD-01-E- 2045. That on perusal of the registration documents annexed to RTO’s letter, it is observed that vehicle OD-01-E-2044, is a Moter Cycle stand in the name of one  Aviram Swain of Soro, Balasore and that vehicle OD-01-E- 2045, is a Motor Cycle stand in the name of one Kamala Lochan Patra of Baliapal, Balasore.

Hence this Commission is left with no other option rather to relay upon above fact, figure & documents to conclude that the registration certificates are in possession with OP No – 1, which were said to be supplied by the OP No – 2 is “forge & fabricated”. Hence this case is fit to be maintainable under this Act.

That referring to the sale / purchase invoice vis-à-vis quotation of the said “tractor” in question it is admitted that a sum of Rs 10, 000/-, was received by the OP No – 2, to perform necessary formalities to obtain Insurance and RTO registration Documents. But it is stated by the complainant that despite several request / follow ups, the OP No -2, did not turn out with any of the documents. That referring to the order sheet dated 26/05/2016, it is observed that, the OP No -2, refused to receive the Notice with Complaint Petition for which could not able to put any stand in this regard, despite being considered to be sufficient, as per law. That as the OP No -2, restraint himself from presenting his stand, hence this Commission safely proceed to relay upon the fact & statement of the complainant as stated and conclude that there is a gross deficiency on the part of the OP No – 2, for not being able to fetch valid Insurance & RTO Documents.

That in connection to the above discussed documents, i.e. “RTO & Insurance documents”, the OP No – 1 has financed the tractor on hypothecation, wherein the ownership of the tractor remains with “Financing Bank” and the complainant will be the user only, as long as the loan amount is not repaid and ownership is not transferred to complainant. That only to have control over the user and for smooth repayment of EMIs and for the security / guarantee purpose the OP No – 1, has retained the earlier said FD of complainant as indemnity. Hence in this situation, the Financing Bank being the lawful “present owner” of the tractor, should have properly looked into, looked after and followed up for proper legal compliance to be done by OP No - 2, in the shape of RTO Documents, Fitness Documents and / or Insurance Documents, etc., for smooth use of the tractor. That the OP No -1, without performing its prime responsibility, not only has pushed its “assets” in to risk zone, rather has illegally had liquidated the complainant’s FD, that laying at OP No – 1. That in the contrary situation, if there was no FD laying with OP No -1, then what action it would have taken? That in another hypothetical situation if the tractor in question would have “stolen” and / or “broken” due to any miss-happening, then by adopting which method the OP No – 1, would have collected its advanced loan amount? Hence it is also concluded that the OP No – 1, the Financing Bank, has committed a gross deficiency on its part for not ensuring proper Insurance & RTO Documents and also has adopted illegal method, by transferring the financial liability on complainant, by confiscating the premature FD of complainant, laying at its end.

That it is quite surprising on the part of this Commission that during this case proceeding none of these OPs have utters anything regarding the “Insurance” aspect of the said tractor, in spite of OP No -2 has received the required amount and the OP No -1, has appropriately acknowledged it, in the shape of Quotation & its approval.

Hence upon travelling through the substance, as aforesaid, and described circumstances leads this Commission to arrive at unanimous conclusion that there is gross deficiency on both the part of the OPs and all the OPs are jointly and severally liable for loss incurred on the part of the complainant.

So, now upon careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record vis-a-vis submission made by complainant & O.Ps, and such documents as sought for from competent Authority, this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that the OPs have not adjudicated their dispute properly before the Commission. There is no solution arrived by the O.Ps for the loss sustained / suffered by the Complainant incurring out of gross deficiency on the part of both the OPs, which legally termed as deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps. Therefore, the complainant is reserves the right to be entitled to get the relief as sought for. Hence, it is ordered -

O  R  D  E  R

Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the Complaint Petition of the instant Consumer bears merit and hence allowed on contest against both O.Ps. That this Commission is of the unanimous opinion that there is a gross deficiency on the part of the OP No -1, as that of OP No -2. Hence the O.P No – 1 & 2, are hereby severally and jointly set liable for their deficiency of service.

The OP No – 1 is hereby directed to;-

1. To pay to the complainant a sum of Rs 03, 66, 655/- (Full Maturity Amount of FD Bearing No KGFD 058573), along with interest @9.00 % P.A. from its maturity date (21/02/2019), till date of actual payment, without adjusting and / or setting-off with any other due & / or deemed due, what so ever.
2. To intimate the complainant, the due loan amount “only” as on date, as remained unpaid stand in the name of complainant, without any other cost / fee / interest etc. To collect such due Loan in the shape & mode as agreed at the time of the taking Loan. That if there is any due arrived over and above the pure loan amount, for the past period and during this case proceedings, then the same can be realized from OP No -2, as ordered hereunder.
3. To furnish authentic RTO Registration and Insurance Document of the Tractor in question, with effect from date of purchase, to the complainant and submit a copy of the same before this Commission, which are require to be “Attested” by respective competent authority, with a period of 45 days from receipt of this order.
4. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs 87, 500/-, Rs 50, 000/-, Rs 75, 000/- & Rs 25, 000/-, towards Compensation, Business Losses, Mental Agony and Litigation Cost.

The OP No – 2 is hereby directed to;-

1. To repay the total loan amount to the complainant, that becomes due on complainant, as declared by OP No -1, in first clause of item no “b” above (Due Loan Amount).
2. To furnish authentic RTO Registration and Insurance Document of the Tractor in question, with effect from date of purchase,  to the complainant and submit a copy of the same before this Commission, which are require to be “Attested” by respective competent authority, with a period of 45 days.
3. To pay to OP No – 1, any interest, fee, late fee and / or any other due over and above the “only loan amount” that becomes due to be levied on complainant as declared by the OP No – 1, for the past period, in second & third clause of item no “b” above (Due Cost / Fee / Interest etc.), and submit the receipt acknowledgement before this Commission with 45 days of receipt of this order.
4. To pay the complainant a sum of Rs 87, 500/-, Rs 50, 000/-, Rs 75, 000/- & Rs 25, 000/-, towards Compensation, Business Losses, Mental Agony and Litigation Cost.

                That delay in any manner, what so ever, for compliance of this order, for both the OPs, shall carry fine of Rs 01, 500/-, per day, payable by the defaulter OP/s to the complainant. And also delay in any manner for compliance of Costs as Awarded and any due payable in lieu of complainant, will carry interest @9.00% P.A.

                In case of failure by any of the O.Ps to comply any the orders as abovementioned, within the aforesaid stipulated time frame, the Complainant is at liberty to realize the same in the shape of cash, kind and / or in any other mode as  aforementioned, from the O.P/s as per prevailing law.

                Pronounced in the open Court of this Commission on this day i.e. the 03^rd day of July, 2023 given under my Signature & Seal of the commission.