Orissa

Jajapur

CC/19/2019

Tilottama Dei - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Automative,Authorised Dealer for John Deere India Pvt. Ltd,and Authorized Dealer of Tractor an - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Kumar Das Pattanayak.

07 Aug 2020

ORDER

                                                     

Tilottama Dei, W/O Late Nilamani Das  

Vill/P.O. Nathasahi ,P.S.Jajpur Sadar,

Via. Panikoili /Dt.Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                      

                                                  (Versus)

 

1. Shree Automative Authorised Dealer for John Deere India Pvt.Ltd\

And authorized Dealer of Tractor and Farm Equipment

At/P.O/P.S/ PanikoiliChhak,Dt. Jajpur

 

2. John Deere India Pvt.Ltd, Tower-14,Cyber city ,Mgarpatta city ,

Hadapsar,Pune.Maharastra . ……………..Opp.Parties.

                                                                                                                                                               

For the Complainant:                              Sri P.K. Daspattnaik Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties :                                Sri R.K.Ghadei,Advocate.     

 

                                                                                                     Date of order:  07 .08. 2020.

MISS  SMITA  RAY, LADY  MEMBER   .

The petitioner being the wife and successor of late Nilamani Das has filed the present dispute alleging negligence on the part of the O.Ps due to non providing sale invoice / sale letter  as against John Dere Tractor purchased by husband of the petitioner from O.P.no.1 paying Rs.6,35,000/- towards the cost of Tractor. Accordingly to the petitioner after the death of her husband ,the petitioner along with her children though approached the O.p.no.1 on several times to supply the sale letter / invoice for registration of his tractor  in the R.T.O office as well as to  obtain the fitness and permit in respect of the tractor in absence of which  the petitioner became unable to ply the Tractor which resulted financial loss to the petitioner. In such situation the petitioner finding no other way has filed the present dispute for redressal of her grievance by this commission ,  The petitioner also has prayed to award compensation of Rs.200,000/- towards financial loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- for mental and physical agony .

            There are two nos of  O.Ps in the present dispute who after appearance filed the written version in support of their defence denying the allegation of the petitioner.

            As per written version of O.P.no.1 though the husband of the petitioner has purchased the above cited Tractor from O.P.no.1 but on the date of sale i.e 04.05.2018 the O.P.no.1 though wanted to hand over the sale certificate to the husband of the petitioner but the husband of the petitioner refused to accept the documents on proper acknowledgement . In addition to it on 06.06.2018 at the time of servicing of the vehicle though the petitioner was asked to receive the documents  but the petitioner without receiving the sale certificate / invoice of the Tractor left the service  station with intention not to register the vehicle in the RTO office by disposing the appropriate fee. Similarly  after the death of the husband of the petitioner nobody from the petitioner’s side has come to the show room to collect the alleged documents though the O.P.no.1 has contacted the petitioner for this propose . Further it is submitted by the O.P.no.1 that an amount of Rs.14212/- has been deducted from the account of O.P.no.1 which has not yet been deposited by the petitioner .Accordingly  at present the O.P party is ready  and willing to hand over the sale certificate and other relevant documents to the petitioner subject to deposit the insurance amount of Rs. 14212/-  on proper acknowledgement . It is therefore prayed that owing to the above grounds the dispute is liable to be dismissed.

            As per written version of O.P.no.2 it is observed that the O.p.no.2 being the manufacture of the alleged tractor is no way liable for the alleged grievance of the petitioner .Further it is stated by O.P.no.2 that so far the grievance of the petitioner is concerned it is in between the petitioner and O.P.no.1. Hence O.P.no.2 is no way connected with the alleged  grievance of the petitioner  since the husband  of the petitioner has purchased the  tractor  from O.P.no.1 paying the cost of the tractor. As such neither the petitioner nor husband of the petitioner is not the consumer of O.P.no.2 for which the petitioner has no locustandi to maintain the dispute against O.P.no.2 . The O.P.no.2 being the company and manufacturer of the tractor sales  the same to the authorized dealer such as O.P.no.1 on “ principal to principal” basis for which the O.p.no.2 is no way liable for any independent act and or omissions committed of O.P.no.1 in view of the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court and National Commission reported in 1995(2) CLT-308-SC and 11(2009) CPJ-295- NC respectively.

            In case according to petitioner, the O.P.no.2 is liable for the alleged grievance then the burden of proof lies with petitioner to establish the same by producing reliable relevant evidence in view of the observation of HON’BLE Supreme court reported in 2000(1) CLT- 33-SC and 2015(11) CPR-144-N.C ,failing which the present dispute is liable to be dismissed against O.P.no.2.

            In view of the above assertion  and counter assertions we are inclined to dispose of the dispute as per our observation  below:

1.Admittedly the husband of the petitioner has purchased the alleged tractor from O.P.no.1 for which the petitioner has alleged the grievance only against O.P.no.1.

2.The petitioner has not raised any grievance against O.P.no.2.

3.According to petitioner after selling the alleged tractor the O.p.no.1 has not supplied the sale letter /  invoice and other documents of the tractor  for which the petitioner was not in a position to register the Tractor  and obtain the fitness certificate and permit. As again st such grievance of the petitioner it is stated by O.P.no1 that the   husband of the petitioner intentionally has not taken the sale letter / invoice and other documents insistead of the approach from the side of O.P.no.1.

            As against stand from the side of O.P.no.1 , it is our considered view that the O.P.no.1 could have sent the documents of the tractor by registered post in case the petitioner or husnband of the petitioner avoided to receive the documents on proper acknowledgement but as observed the O.P.no.1remained silent which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.no.1  only .

            As regards the liability of O.P.no.2 we are inclined to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.p.no.2 since the O.p.no.2 has no relationship with the alleged grievance of the petitioner .

Hence this order

            The dispute is dismissed against O.P.no.2 and allowed against O.P.no.1.

The O.P.no.1 is directed to supply the alleged documents of the Tractor to the petitioner and concerned RTO by register post with A.D after receiving the Insurance amount of Rs.14212/- in case the petitioner /husband of the petitioner has not paid the above amount towards insurance of the tractor.

The petitioner is also directed to pay the above amount within 7 days to O.P.no.1 in case the said amount of Rs.14212/- has not been paid by the petitioner/husband of the petitioner.

As regards   compensation we assess Rs.5,000/- ( five thousand ) and cost of Rs.2000/- ( two thousand )  which will be paid by O.P.no.1 to the petitioner.

The above order shall be complied within one month after receipt of the order ,failing which the awarded amount will carry 12% interest per annum from the date of filing the dispute till its realization.

            This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th  day of  August ,2020. under my hand and seal of the Forum.