The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is Sri Rama Chandra Nayak, Proprietor National Motors, Januganj Golei, Balasore, O.P No.2 is the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O), International Tractors Limited, Gujaran, Punjab and O.P No.3 is the Manager, Indian Bank, Haladipada Branch, Haladipada, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to purchase a tractor along with harvester for engagement in his agricultural farm had obtained a quotation on dtd.06.05.2016 from O.P No.1 for Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lacs) only and Rs.8,50,000/- (Rupees Eight lacs fifty thousand) only respectively in toto Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs fifty thousand) only, where O.P No.1 is eligible to receive subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only from Govt. of Odisha. Accordingly, the O.P No.1 has to receive Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs fifty thousand) only towards cost of said tractor and harvester from the Complainant, as such the O.P No.3 financed a loan of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs fifty thousand) only in favour of the Complainant. On the basis of retail invoice dtd.17.12.2016 issued by O.P No.1, the O.P No.3 on behalf of the Complainant prepared a demand draft on 19.12.2016 of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs fifty thousand) only in favour of O.P No.1 towards payment of said tractor and harvester. The O.P No.1 on receipt of full and final payment towards cost, handed over Sonalika tractor and harvester to the Complainant on 19.12.2016 in the premises of O.P No.3. As per advice of O.P No.1, the Complainant had been to O.P No.1 on 22.12.2016 to collect money receipt, sale invoice and other related sale papers for registration of said tractor and harvester in the Office of R.T.O, Balasore, but the O.P No.1 did not give the above mentioned documents of sale and took time again and again. As such the O.P No.1 has not given the above documents of sale to the Complainant with pretext that the O.P No.2 has withheld the sale documents of the Complainant, for which the O.P No.2 is made a Party in this case. On the way to his agricultural farm, the M.V.D staff of R.T.O, Balasore detained the said tractor and harvester on 05.01.2017 and imposed fine and compounding fees of Rs.6,350/- (Rupees Six thousand three hundred fifty) only and tax and penalty of Rs.1,652/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred fifty two) only and collected the same on the same date from the Complainant, which caused due to non-registration and non-payment of tax by the default of O.P No.1 and O.P No.2. The O.P No.1 is not handing over the sale papers to the Complainant till date, which amounts to deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps No.1 and 2, causing harassment, financial loss and mental agony to the Complainant. The Complainant has prayed for handing over the sale papers as mentioned earlier by the O.P No.1 and 2 along with payment of Rs.8,002/- (Rupees Eight thousand two) only (paid by the Complainant to M.V.D staff of R.T.O, Balasore on 05.01.2017) and compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation cost.  

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.1 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.1 has further submitted that the Complainant had purchased three tractors from O.P No.1 being financed and the Complainant has cleared the payment of two tractors to the O.P No.1, which has been purchased by the Complainant earlier from O.P No.1, accordingly, relationship has been developed. The Complainant again came and approached O.P No.1 to purchase another tractor and accordingly, he contacted with the O.P No.3-Bank and thereafter, he obtained the quotation of tractor and harvester amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs fifty thousand) only from O.P No.1. Then the O.P No.3-Bank sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs fifty thousand) only and the rest Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only is to be paid by the Complainant to the O.P No.1, for which the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 to pay the rest amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only after receiving the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only from the Govt. of Odisha. As per Govt. norms, the O.P No.1 paid the subsidy amount at the time of purchase of the vehicle and subsequently, after submitting necessary documents, the Govt. will pay the subsidy amount to the Complainant. So, the Complainant requested the O.P No.1 for delivery of tractor and harvester by keeping the sale documents with him and after payment of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only, the Complainant will receive the sale papers from the O.P No.1, for which, as the Complainant is an old Customer and by keeping good faith on him, the O.P No.1 handed over the tractor and harvester to the Complainant. Thereafter, as per Govt. norms, the Complainant is to obtain the permit from District Agriculture Office and submits the permit before the O.P No.3-Bank along with other documents and accordingly, subsidy amount will come to the Complainant. But till yet, neither the Complainant has received the subsidy amount nor paid the cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only to the O.P No.1. On the other hand, after repeated requests made by the O.P No.1, the Complainant played hide and seek and did not pay the cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only to the O.P No.1 and receive the sale documents. So, the case of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with cost. Though the Advocate for O.P No.1 filed hazira, but was absent at the time of hearing of this case. Previous cost of Rs.500/- imposed upon him vide order dtd.07.11.2017 is not paid by him till today.

                    4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through his Advocate denying on the point of maintainability, Consumer as well as its cause of action. The O.P No.2 has further submitted that he only appoints and deals with its dealers on principles of principal basis i.e. dealers purchase tractors from O.P No.2 and then sell the same to their Customers against their own invoice. The O.P No.2 never deals with any Customer directly. At the time of sale of tractor to the dealer, Form No.22 is sent to the dealer. The dealer issues said Form No.22 along with invoice and sale certificate i.e. Form No.21 to the Customer. Hence, there is no privity of contract in between the Complainant and the O.P No.2. So, the case of the Complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                    5. Though sufficient opportunities are given to O.P No.3, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P No.3 is set ex-parte.

                    6. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determination of this case are as follows:-

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

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

(iii) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act-1986 ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?

                    7. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.Ps have not filed any documents in their support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that though the O.P No.1 handed over the vehicle after receiving a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- (Rupees Fourteen lacs fifty thousand) only, the sanctioned loan amount against the valuation is of Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen lacs fifty thousand) only as per quotation. The O.P No.1 neither handed over the documents of the vehicle regarding sale at the time of sale nor thereafter in spite of several requests made by the Complainant. While plying the vehicle, it was detected by the M.V.D staff of R.T.O, Balasore and imposed penalty of Rs.8,002/- (Rupees Eight thousand two) only, for which there is deficiency of service on the part of O.P No.1 and the O.P No.1 is liable for compensation and litigation cost. On perusal of documents filed by the Complainant, it shows that a sum of Rs.6,350/- (Rupees Six thousand three hundred fifty) only was collected from the Complainant towards L.M.V (Car-P). The Complainant failed to explain when dispute is for tractor and harvester, how a private car came into existence. Furthermore, the rest fine amount of Rs.1,652/- (Rupees One thousand six hundred fifty two) only is towards plying the vehicle without document. It is a commonsense that a vehicle without document should not be plied on the road and violation of it attracts penalties. Further, the Complainant is silent regarding payment of subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only to the O.P No.1. On the other hand, the O.P No.1 remained absent during argument and also failed to pay adjournment cost of Rs.500/- imposed earlier. So, it shows that he is not interested to proceed with this case. The O.P No.2 has no role in this case as per his written version and the O.P No.3 is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier. However, the pleading of O.P No.1 remained as it is, wherein he claims about subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only from the Complainant and withheld the sale documents of the vehicle. As per general rules and prudence, the O.P No.1 is duty bound to hand over the sale documents of the alleged vehicle to the Complainant at the time of sale in order to enable the Complainant to ply his vehicle smoothly. It is claimed that by keeping pending of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only in good faith, the O.P No.1 handed over the vehicle. So, the Complainant is also duty bound to repay the rest amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only to the O.P No.1 by getting it as per subsidy amount after observing due procedure.

                    8. So, in the circumstances as discussed above, I am of the opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.P No.1 for non-delivery of the sale documents, for which he is liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization and the Complainant is duty bound to pay the subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only by observing the due procedure of subsidy. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on contest against O.P No.1 with cost and the case is dismissed on contest against O.P No.2 and on ex-parte against O.P No.3 without cost. The O.P No.1 is directed to hand over the sale documents of the sold tractor and harvester along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the Complainant within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Further, regarding payment of subsidy amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lacs) only, the Complainant is to take necessary steps for payment of the same to the O.P No.1 at an earliest opportunity, failing which the O.P No.1 is at liberty to take shelter under due process of Law. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize his claim from the O.P No.1 under due procedure Law, in case of failure by the O.P No.1 to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 18th day of July, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.