DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK

Dated the 11th day of December, 2018

                                                   Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President

                                                                2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member

                                                                3. Afsara Begum, Member

C.D Case No. 68 of 2017

Sri Ramakrushna Panda

S/o Radhakanta Panda,

Vill: Panchapada,

Po: Bandhagaon,

Ps: Bhadrak (R),

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                        ……………………. Complainant

            (Versus)

1. Sri Amit Didwania,

Proprietor/Authorized Dealer:-

International Tractors Ltd. (DUNNOCK DEO),

At/Po: Charampa,

Ps: Bhadrak (T),

Dist: Bhadrak

2. The Concerned Authority,

International Tractors Ltd.,

Vill: Chak Gujran,

Po: Plplanwala- 146022,

Jalandhar Road, Hoshiarpur,

Punjab

3. The Concerned Authority:-

Oriental Bank of Commerce,

At/Po/Ps: Bhadrak (T),

Dist: Bhadrak

                                                      …………………………..Opp. Parties

Counsel For Complainant: Sri S. Tripathy Adv

Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri S. Mohanty Adv & Others

Counsel For the OP No. 2: Sri Tusarkanta Das Adv & Associates

Counsel For the OP No. 3: Sri Hemanta Kumar Nayak Adv

Date of hearing: 23.04.2018

Date of order: 11.12.2018

BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER

This dispute arises out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service.

The facts as narrated in the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer earning his livelihood from farming and intended to acquire a tractor on bank loan for modern farming. After collecting information from different sources, complainant made up his mind to purchase a Sonalika Tractor from the dealer M/s “DUNNOCK DEO” Prop:- Mr. Amit Didwania at Charampa, Bhadrak. Accordingly he met the said dealer (OP No. 1) and expressed his desire to purchase a Sonalika International Tractor of G.T 22 RX Brand but OP No. 1 insisted upon the complainant to purchase D1-20-G.T Model instead of G.T-22 Model which was agreed by the complainant under compulsion and obtained quotation from OP No. 1 and submitted the same to the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce (OP No. 3) at Bhadrak for processing the loan proposal of the proposed tractor. Observing all required formalities, OP No. 3 sanctioned a sum of Rs 4,37,000/- for acquisition of a tractor, trolley and other required accessories. While contacting the dealer for selection of model, it was assured by OP No. 1 to arrange subsidy of Rs 2,00,000/- which will be deducted from the actual cost of tractor at the time of delivery. After availing the loan the complainant met OP No. 1 for delivery of the tractor and requested to deduct the subsidy amount from the cost of the tractor but the said OP assured to arrange payment of subsidy within a period of six months and on good faith the complainant having trust on the dealer received the tractor on dt. 31.10.2013 and engaged the same in farming. The said tractor bearing Regd. No- OD-22A-6265 and OD-22A-6266 as Regd. No- of trolley was engaged in farming which fetched good income for repayment of bank loan. Accordingly the complainant has paid Rs 2,55,171/- to his loan account No- 12125115001549 excluding his entitlement of Rs 2,00,000/-. It is also alleged by the complainant that after 2 days of receipt of tractor from OP No. 1 it was noticed that the tractor was an old one and has run for more than 1,000 K.M before selling the same. It was also observed that the tractor was also re-colored as a result of which the tractor could not function properly more than 15 days and gave rise to multifarious defects. The complainant took the tractor to the dealer point for necessary repairing where the dealer being in-charge of service center claimed Rs 10,000/- in advance which was paid by the complainant to get his tractor repaired. But OP No. 1 did not repair the tractor rather refused to have received the amount when the complainant demanded refund of Rs 10,000/- which was paid at the time of booking of tractor for repairing. Being aggrieved, the complainant raised the matter with the police which did not yield any positive result for him. When the supplier of the tractor that is OP No. 1 and the financier (OP No. 3) refused to adjust the subsidy amount, the complainant, finding no other way, filed this case for proper adjudication with a prayer to issue direction for supply of a new tractor, OP No. 2 to pay Rs 15,000/- compensation and OP No. 3 to refund Rs 2,55,171/- to the complainant which was credited to the loan account of the complainant earlier.

All the O.Ps challenged the allegations brought in the complaint and contested the case.  OP No. 1, in submitting the written version, stated that this case is not maintainable and false under barred by limitation as the tractor was purchased during the year 2013 and the case has been filed in the year 2017 after lapse of a period of 4 years. In explaining the allegations of the complaint, OP No. 1 has particularly denied to have impressed upon the complainant to opt for D1-20-GT model Sonalika Tractor instated of GT-22-RX model Sonalika Tractor. The fact remains that the complainant came to the sales point for selection and purchase of a tractor of Sonalika Make as different models were available in the show room and the complainant of his own accord selected D1-20-GT model and there was no pressure or compulsion to select a particular model. The complainant has taken false plea to bring such an allegation against the answering OP for his personal interest and ulterior motive. As regards subsidy the dealer of the tractor has no authority to select the beneficiary and to get the subsidy released from the Govt. unless the beneficiary personally applies to the appropriate authority to enlist his name in the list of the beneficiary eligible for agricultural subsidy. Hence the allegation brought by the complainant against the answering OP as to has promised for release of subsidy of Rs 2,00,000/- within one month from the date of purchase of the tractor is nothing but a fabricated imaginary story. That apart he has also alleged as to have paid Rs 10,000/- towards repairing of the tractor in this service centre owned and managed by OP No. 1 which is absolutely false and fabricated and the answering OP leaves the same on the complainant to prove. It is nothing but the only truth that the complainant has not paid any amount to the answering OP without obtaining authentic receipt from the dealer as it is a long adopted practice of the dealer on principle. Hence the entire allegations brought against OP No. 1 in the complaint has no merit and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

OP No. 2 (International Tractors Ltd.), in submitting written statement has stated that the case is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Further OP No. 2 has raised that the answering OP is the manufacturer of Sonalika Tractor and the complainant has no where made a single allegation against the said OP in the entire complaint. Hence the OP No. 2 is a mis-joinder in this case. It is also further stated by OP No. 2 that it has not caused any deficiency of service nor has resorted any unfair trade practice nor there was any manufacturing defect in the tractor in question. Hence the complaint does not bear any merit against OP No. 2 and hence liable to be dismissed.

OP No. 3 is the financing bank who has financed the loan to the complainant for acquisition of the dispute tractor. In submitting written version OP No. 3 stated that the complainant has discontinued payment of regular installments after payment of a sum of Rs 90,100/- to the credit of the loan account from the date of availing of such loan. It is further stated that OP No. 3 has neither caused any deficiency of service nor has neglected to initiate needful steps in the process of recovery. The very important and relevant fact is that OP No. 3 has filed a money recovery suit bearing No- 1257/(III)/2015 to recovery the loan outstanding against the complainant which is still pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Bhadrak for final verdict. When the Civil Case is pending in the aforementioned Court, the dispute raised in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bhadrak is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Besides above, the complainant has not raised any objection regarding deficiency caused during the process of advancing loan and in subsequent times. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

We have gone through the complaint, written versions filed by all O.Ps, perused relevant material on record and observed as follows.

1. It is beyond dispute that the complainant has availed a loan from Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bhadrak Branch for acquisition of a Sonalika Tractor manufactured by the International Tractors Ltd. which was supplied by DUNNOCK DEO, the authorized dealer of OP No. 2 situated at Charampa, Bhadrak. On perusal of complaint it is observed that all the allegations are made against OP No. 1 who is the supplier and authorized service provider of the tractor. The first and foremost complaint is that the supplier (OP No. 1) insisted upon the complainant to purchase D1-20-G.T Model instead of G.T-22 Model which was opted by the complainant. Being forced and hard pressed by OP No. 1 the complainant obtained the quotation from the dealer and submitted the same to OP No. 3 bank for sanction of loan. On the contrary OP No. 1 challenged the allegation of complainant in stating that the complainant has requested for a quotation of Sonalika Tractor having capacity of D1-20-G.T Model to submit the same in the bank to avail finance. At no point of time the complainant has requested/asked for G.T-22 Model and this OP has never instated upon him to opt for D1-20-G.T Model. Hence the complainant has to prove and substantiate the allegation. On perusal of records it is observed that no such evidence made available as to OP No. 1 has pressed him hard to opt for D1-20-G.T Model instead of G.T-22 Model. Therefore this particular allegation does not bear any merit.

2. Secondly the complainant has alleged that the tractor, after facing an accident, was taken to the workshop of authorized service centre of International Tractor Ltd. which is managed by the same dealer that is DUNNOCK DEO. It is also alleged by the complainant that he has paid a sum of Rs 10,000/- as advance towards repairing charges with an assurance by the owner of the service centre that the repairing work will be accomplished within a week but the OP No. 1 did not complete the work even after the agreed period nor refunded the amount of Rs 10,000/- which was taken towards repairing charged by the said OP. On the other hand OP No. 1 objected the allegation of the complainant in submitting that he has not availed any advance from the complainant towards repairing of the tractor. It is an imaginary and fabricated story plotted by the complainant to put the OP No. 1 in a harassing situation with an unholy intention to extract sum amount from the said OP. Further it also alleged by the complainant that after two days of receiving the tractor from the dealer it was observed that the said tractor in dispute is not brand new one and has been sold to the complainant after coloring and repairing. Secondly one more allegation was made in the complaint that the dealer did not pay Rs 2,00,000/- as subsidy as he was assured by the dealer concerned. OP No. 1 vehemently opposed the claim of the complainant in stating that he is not the competent authority to grant and release subsidy in favour of the complainant. It is the State Govt. in Agriculture Dept. who is competent to release the subsidy on proper application in the prescribed format made by the complainant. Hence whatever allegation has been made about of release of subsidy is absolutely fake & imaginary. That apart, supplying of old and used tractor to the complainant by OP No. 1 is absolutely false as the complainant has never brought it to the notice/knowledge of the dealer till the date of filing of the case. Had it been true, the complainant could have brought the tractor to the dealer point for necessary action. Raising such an allegation after a lapse of four years is nothing but an Act to defraud the supplier.        

Perused the materials on record on the above points and observed that the complainant has not adduced any such evidence to prove his allegations for payment of Rs 10,000/-, as advance to the dealer towards repairing of his damaged tractor nor has submitted any documents which would have proved the tractor faced an accident and was taken to authorized service centre of International Tractor Ltd. Furthermore the complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding supply of old tractor and assurance given for release of Rs 2,00,000/ subsidy by OP No. 1. The complainant has failed to exhibit money receipt in support of advance given to the dealer and job card in support of vehicle was in the service centre for repairing. Hence the allegation of the complainant seems to be fake and fabricated.

3. Although the complainant has submitted copies of grievance petitions submitted to the IIC, Bhadrak (R) Police Station and to District Administration but no positive result was yielded by the complainant in spite of the police initiated appropriate steps to resolve the issue and failed to draw a conclusion because of the fluctuating statement of the complainant. The inspection conducted by the manager, Agro Industries Corporation, Bhadrak by virtue of an order issued by Collector, Bhadrak seems to be of no use with regards to refund of money paid in advance for repairing of the tractor as the officer inspected and enquired about the facts has not discussed anything about receipt and payment of Rs 10,000/- by both the parties.

4. On perusal of records it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No. 3 (Financing Bank) has filed a Money Recovery Suit in the Court of Hon’ble Civil Judge, Bhadrak in the year 2015 which still pending in the said Court for final disposal. When a Civil Suit is pending in the Court of law it is not permissible to file another case in the Consumer Forum for adjudication and decision which contravenes the settled principle of law and making the bank as party to this case is absolutely unnecessary. Secondly it is objected by the OP No. 3 that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts which are very mush essential for proper adjudication. This clearly proves that the allegations made in the complaint are absolutely fabricated and imaginary. Besides above the OP has made a false allegation that he has paid Rs 2,55,171/- to the credit of his loan account which is absolutely false and inflated. But in reality the complainant has paid Rs 90,100/- to credit of the loan account although his loan account has been credited with Rs 2,55,171/- as on the date of filing of this case. The true fact is that the Credit Guaranty Insurance for small and medium entrepreneurs has assisted a sum of Rs 1,90,371/- which has been credited to the loan account of the complainant but it is not true that the OP has paid the entire amount what has been credited to the loan account. It is pertinent mention here that the loan account of the complainant, due to non-payment and irregular payment, has become NPA (Non Performing Asset) under loss category for which OP No. 3 has filed money recovery suit in the appropriate Court of law.  

From the above mentioned analysis of the facts and evidences available on record it is observed that the allegations made in the complaint are proved false and the complainant failed to prove the allegations. Hence it is ordered;   

ORDER                                      

The complaint be and the same is dismissed and in the circumstances without cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 11th December, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.