Heard learned counsel for both the sides.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant intended to purchase Mahindra Tractor 275 DI Bhumiputra for agricultural purpose and for that visited the office of Op No.2 on 10.12.2014 and paid Rs.2,65,000/- as down payment and further paid Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter OP No.3 financed Rs.3,90,000/- as per agreement for Mahindra Tractor 275 DI. Also the financer financed Rs.60,000/-. As such the Op No.1 sold the tractor for Rs.6,37,129/- but deducting subsidy amount Rs.90,000/-, actually sold the tractor at Rs.5,47,129/- to the complainant. The OP No.2 also charged Rs.1,60,000/- for trolley. The complainant alleged that the OP No.2 did not allow subsidy in the trolley. Further he alleged that the Op No.2 demanded 32,000/- for registration of the documents including the road permit, fitness and insurance etc. It is alleged that the complainant was assured to provide the documents of the tractor but no document like sale certificate and registration certificate supplied for which he could not ply the tractor. As such he alleged the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, he filed the complaint case.
4. The OP No.1 & 2 filed the written version stating that the consumer complaint is not maintainable. But they admitted that the complainant has purchased the tractor Mahindra 275 DI at the cost of Rs.6,37,129/- and after discount of Rs.90,000/- he paid Rs.5,47,129/- towards tractor and also he purchased trolley at Rs.1,60,000/-. It is admitted by them that the Mahindra finance has also paid Rs.3,90,000/- out of above account after which the tractor and trolley were handed over to the complainant. It is averred that the complainant, in order to avail the Govt. benefit has not come through the Orissa Agro Industries Corporation(OAIC) to purchase the tractor. Since, the complainant has not come through the OAIC, for which the question of subsidy as alleged by the complainant does not arise. The OP No.1 & 2 denied about any illegal demand of Rs.6,37,129/- and the case has been filed absolutely false and frivolous. It is also stated that since complainant’s loan has not been approved by the appropriate authority, the question of allowing subsidy for the tractor and trolley does not arise. The OP No.1 & 2 further have taken plea that immediately after delivery of the tractor the insurance coverage but due to non payment of fees the insurance papers could not given because of non-cooperation of the complainant. However, on 06.07.2015 all documents have been handed over to the complainant. Rest of the allegation against OP No.1 & 2 are denied. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.
5. The OP No.3 clearly stated in their written version, the claim is not maintainable and they have supported the OP No.1 & 2.
6. The OP No.4 the financer has taken plea that they have financed the vehicle for Rs.5,47,129/-, an agreement to pay the loan amount on installment basis was executed on 06.7.2015 and 18.08.2015. The complainant was supposed to pay the EMI regularly but defaulted in payment of one installment. He has obtained the second loan but it has not been paid. However, they submit that they have no any deficiency in service on their part.
.7. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The complaint petition is allowed in part. The OP No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the excess amount of Rs.72,229/- being taken by them with interest @ 6 % per annum from 09.12.2014 to till date of payment and to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for not providing the M.V. documents to the complainant in due time and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation to the complainant. The above order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the compensation amount shall carry interest @ 10 % p.a. till payment.
Since, there is no specific allegations against the OPs No.3,4, 5 & 6, no order against them.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum without following the fact and circumstances and without understanding the written version has passed the impugned order which is illegal and improper. According to him the complainant has purchased the tractor from OP No.1 & 2 directly without the proposal rooted through the OAIC and the cost of the tractor by their calculation was Rs.6,37,129/- and same has also been communicated to the complainant and the OP sold tractor on discount of Rs.90,000/- to the complainant. Of course out of that amount Rs.3,90,000/- was received from the financer. He submitted that there is no any deficiency in service on their part but learned District Forum ought to have considered the case with proper pro….. and that Rs.90,000/- as claimed as subsidy can not be maintained when his case is not routed through the concerned authority i.e. OAIC. Therefore, he submitted that after due calculation there is nothing left to consider to pay back any amount. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3 supports the plea of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 submitted that learned District Forum has rightly passed the order because the complainant was supposed to purchase the tractor under Govt. rate at the cost of Rs.5,64,900/- and after deducting subsidy its cost would be more less. He submitted that the complainant has paid Rs.6,37,129/- including down payment of Rs.2,67,000/- to the OP No.1 & 2. But he could not avail the rate of Govt. Since, the subsidy has not been paid back learned District Forum has passed the correct order by allowing the complaint. So, he supports the impugned order.
10. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
11. It is admitted fact that the complainant has directly purchased the tractor from OP No.1 & 2. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has not made proposal to purchase tractor through OAIC. It is also not in dispute that the Govt. rate was fixed on 14.01.2015 as Rs. 5,64,900/-. It is also not in dispute that the complainant purchased the tractor from OP No.1 & 2 on payment of Rs.6,37,129/-. However, Rs.90,000/- was deducted by the OP No.1 & 2 from the original value and they received Rs.5,47,129/- from the complainant. The cash receipt shows that the complainant has paid Rs.2,65,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. Be that as it may, OP No. 1 & 2 have admitted that they have received Rs.5,47,129/- after deducting Rs.90,000/- fixed by the Company. Thus, we consider that plea of OP No.1 & 2 because the complainant has not purchased tractor through Govt. machinery i.e. OAIC but on being bargained with OP No.1 & 2. So question of Govt. price does not bear any significance when complainant chose to purchase tractor from OP No.1 & 2 directly.
12. The question arises now whether Rs.90,000/- being disputed by the learned District Forum is to be payable by the Op No.1 & 2 or not. The order of the learned District Forum is not clear as to how he arrived at Rs.72,000/- payable by the Op No.1 & 2. Learned District Forum has only confused in the para-11 by observing why OP has not sold the tractor in Govt. rate. The Govt. rate is fixed only for the those persons who apply for agricultural purpose with the approval of OAIC to purchase the tractor. When the case of the complainant is not moved by the OAIC and same has been admitted by the concerned OPs, the order of the learned District Forum is absolutely illegal and improper. From the another angle when we judge the case, we are of the view that subsidy of Rs.90,000/- can not be claimed in Consumer For a as settled law as expounded by Hon’ble Apex Court. Because it is an incentive by Govt. to promote agriculture.
13. In view of aforesaid analysis, we are of the view that the impugned order is liable to be set-aside and it is set-aside and appeal stands allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
