For Complainant         :           Sri Harish Ch. Muduli, Advocate & associates.

For OP No.1 & 2          :           Sri K. N. Samantaray, Advocate & associates.

For OP No.3                 :           Sri Sunil Ku. Mohanty, Advocate.

                                                            -x-

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that on 23.06.2015 he purchased a tractor of Mahindra Company from OP.1 (a sub-dealer of OP.2) with one year warranty from 23.06.2015 to 22.06.2016.  It is submitted that the tractor in question was taken to OP.1 for repair on 15.11.2016 and the complainant paid advance amount of Rs.15, 000/- on 04.11.2016 from the a/c No.31305551801 and also paid Rs.42, 000/- on 17.11.2016 through money transfer to the OP.1 and according to the complainant he paid a total sum of Rs.77, 526/- to the OP.1.  It is further submitted that the total expenditure towards repair of tractor was Rs.35, 042/- and the OP.1 has issued bill accordingly but when the OP.1 was asked to refund excess amount taken by him, the OP.1 did not return anything.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund excess amount of Rs.42, 482/- and to pay Rs.55, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The Ops 1 & 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about the repair of the alleged vehicle in their workshop at Rayagada.  The Ops contended that the complainant came with the tractor for repair after the warranty period is over and hence the repair was chargeable.  It is further contended that the complainant made a payment of Rs.35, 042/- as per retail invoice dt.17.11.2016 and took refund of Rs.6958/- from OP.1 on 15.12.2016 out of his total advance payment of Rs.42, 000/-.  The Ops also denied the allegation of the complainant that he has paid Rs.15, 000/- advance to the OP.1 on 04.11.2016 without filing any related document and thus denying any fault on their part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The OP No.3 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the transaction and dispute was taken place between the complainant and OP No.1 and the OP.3 has no control over the OP.1 with regard to the monetary transaction except removal of defect or service matters relating to the vehicle.  It is further contended that the OP.3 is in no way concerned about the present dispute between the parties for want of knowledge and thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP. Prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

4.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The Ops 1 & 2 has also filed certain documents.  The OP.3 filed affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the complainant through its A/R and perused the materials available on record.

5.                     In this case the complainant after warranty period has taken his tractor to the OP.1 for repair and as such the repair has been done on cost paid basis.  There is no dispute regarding repair of the vehicle but the dispute arose when the OP.1 did not refund the excess amount claimed to be taken from the complainant during repair.  Now it is to be seen as to how much amount was the cost of repair and how much amount was advanced by the complainant during repair.

6.                     The complainant has paid certain amount through money transfer from his SBI account.  It is seen from the record that the complainant has filed 2 payment slips dt.17.11.2016 of SBI.  The payments were Rs.40, 000/- and Rs.2000/- respectively through fund transfer in favour of M/s. Paramount Automotive on 17.11.2016.  So payment of Rs.42, 000/- in favour of OP.1 by the complainant is confirmed.  The complainant alleges that he made an advance of Rs.15, 000/- in favour of the OP.1 on 04.11.2016 but no supportive document has been filed by the complainant favouring his above allegations.  The complainant stated that for repair and servicing the OP.1 took advance of Rs.15, 000/- on 04.11.2016 from A/c No.31305551801 but unfortunately failed to file any reference in support of his said allegations.  Bare allegations in the complaint petition will not do.  It must be supported by necessary documentary evidence.  As the complainant has not filed a single piece of paper in support of his case that he has paid Rs.15, 000/- to the OP.1 on 04.11.2016, his allegation in this regard has no force.

7.                     It is seen from the record that the complainant has advanced a sum of Rs.42, 000/- to the OP.1 on 17.11.2016 towards repair of his tractor and the repair estimate was Rs.35, 042/-.  Thus the complainant is to get refund of Rs.6958/- from the OP.1 as balance amount.  It is also further seen from the record that the OP.1 has refunded Rs.6958/- to the complainant through a voucher dt.15.12.2016 and the complainant has received the said amount with due acknowledgement, the copy of which is available on record.

7.                     In this case the complainant has no dispute regarding any deficiency in service committed by the Ops but the case of the complainant was about non refund of excess amount by OP.1.  As discussed supra, the OP.1 has duly refunded the excess amount taken by him and the complainant is nothing to get any refund from the OP.1.  After getting refund of due amount, the complainant has no case against any of the Ops and thus his complaint petition against the Ops deserves dismissal.

8.                     In the result we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)