BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
1. The facts of the complaint case in a short compass is that the complainant is a member of Gandhiji Farmers’ Group of Chaitanyapur - 2 Gram Panchayet under Panskura Block. OP no.1 is a coordinator /Agent of Purba Medinipur Agro Producer Company. The OP no. 1 informed the complainant about the subsidy for purchase of a power tiller. Then the complainant went to the office of the OP No. 2 with the OP no.1; and OP 2, the Government Officer assured that the complainant was eligible for the subsidy according to Government Notification. Valuation of the power tiller was Rs. 1,74,270/-. Then on 11.01.2017 the complainant along with OP no. 1 came to the office of the OP No. 2 and got intimation regarding beneficiary of a power tiller and subsidy thereof. It was declared that the complainant is eligible for a subsidy of Rs. 60,000/- and he was also asked to open a bank account in the IDBI, Bank at Tamluk to deposit the rest amount. Thereafter, on 22.02.2017 the complainant along with OP no.1 had been to the IDBI Bank and by depositing an amount of Rs. 2500/- opened A/C being No. 0761104000105804.
Thereafter, according to the direction of the OP nos. 1 and 2 the complainant deposited rest amount of Rs 1,14,270/- in his said A/C on 22.03.17. After such deposit of the amount, the OP no.1 called in the complainant to the office of the OP. no. 2 and there they introduced the representative of OP no. 3 and in presence of the OP no .2, the representative of the OP no. 3 and the OP no 1 himself prepared a challan for delivery of the power tiller and at the instruction of the OP Nos. 1 and 2, the OP no. 3 took signature of the complainant on a delivery challan on 24.03.2017 and gave assurance that the power tiller would be supplied shortly. But the complainant did not get delivery of the power tiller even after expiry of many days. Then he made contact with the OP no. 1 and came to the office of the OP no. 2 when they told that the process to supply the power tiller is going on and soon it would be delivered. In the meantime the complainant checked his A/C and found that on 05.04.2017 the OP no. 3 had withdrawn the amount of Rs. 1,14,270/- by NEFT. Thereafter, time and again the complainant met with the OP nos. 1 and 2 for supply of the power tiller, but his efforts went in vain. Ultimately he wrote to the Savapati of Purba Medinipur Zilla Parishad at Tamluk on 03.05.2017 but without any good. On 05.09.2017 the complainant met with the OP nos. 1 and 2 and asked for delivery of the power tiller and then both of them insulted him and drove away from the office by saying that the power tiller had already been delivered. Being frustrated the complainant sent a notice to the OP no.1 on 07.09.2017 but it remained unanswered.
2. Hence, the instant case was initiated with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
3. Being summoned, all the Opposite Parties appeared and contested the complaint by filing separate written version.
4. The OP No. 1 Tanmay Samanta denied all the material allegations of the complaint and contended inter- alia that the impugned power tiller was duly handed over to the complainant and he admitted by way of his application that all the documents were properly authenticated in respect of receipt of the power tiller. This OP has stressed upon that if the power tiller had not been supplied to the complainant, necessary legal action ought to have been taken by the OP no.2, the Government Department. This OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
5. The OP No. 2 is the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Abasbari at Tamluk. He also denied all the material allegations made in the complaint. He has contended in the written version that as per guideline of Mission for integrated development of Horticulture there is a Government order to grant subsidy of Rs. 60,000/- for purchase of a power tiller. The complainant observed all the formalities and signed in the delivery challan of OP no. 3 showing delivery of power tiller and then this OP passed payment order for Rs. 60,000/- on 03.05.2017. This OP also wrote letter to the OP no. 3 regarding delivery of the power tiller to the complainant. Thereafter, on the complaint of the complainant filed before the Savadhipati regarding non- delivery of the power tiller, the higher authority, the Additional District Magistrate Tamluk provisionally stopped payment of the subsidy. This OP is not responsible for any lapse on his part in the matter of the complaint of the complainant. This OP stated that he is all along willing to disburse the subsidy amount if the complainant withdrew his objection for non delivery of the power tiller. This Op also contended that the Zilla Parishad Savadhipati and the ADM Tamluk are also necessary parties to this complaint.
6. On such grounds the OP no. 2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
7. The OP no 3 has been represented by its proprietor . He has also resisted and denied all the material allegations made against OP-3 in the complaint. The defense of this OP no 3 is same that of the defense made out by the OP No. 1. In his written version this OP has insisted upon the stand that the complainant signed all the documents acknowledging the receipt of the power tiller in question. This OP has taken the plea that the complainant has filed this case being misguided by someone else for illegal gain. This OP also prays for dismissal of the case with exemplary costs.
8. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
I. Is the Complaint case maintainable in its present form?
II. Is the Complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
9. In Re:- Points No. I & II
10. As both the points are inter related we are inclined to address the points simultaneously in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the Ld Counsel for both parties.
12. Having regards had to the contents of complaint ,written version ,evidence and other materials on record, it appears that complainant is a consumer and particularly the op -3 acted as service provider,as such the instant case is maintainable in its present form in law.
13. Now, the complainant has filed some documents to prove his allegation against the OPs. From the Intimation of the Deputy Director of Horticulture, the OP no.2 regarding selected beneficiary of power tiller eligible for subsidy dated 11.01.2017 it appears that the complainant has been selected as a beneficiary. This letter was written to the Branch Manager of the IDBI Bank Tamluk Branch who had to open the account for disbursing the subsidy to the beneficiary under the Project. The complainant also filed copy of an application addressed to the Savadhipati of Purba Medinipur regarding non- receipt of the power tiller wherein the complainant has stated that on 05.04.2017 the OP no 3, the dealer/supplier of the Power Tiller has withdrawn an amount of Rs. 1,14,270/- for supply of the power tiller. By the said letter the complainant has sought for redress from the Savadhipati as the said OP-3 did not supply the power tiller till that date. The complainant also filed an application before the Deputy Director of Horticulture, Abasbari at Tamluk stating that the OP no. 3 has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,14,270/- from the A/C of the complainant in IDBI Bank, Tamluk but the complainant did not receive the power tiller. The complainant has also filed a photocopy of his passbook page for relevant A/C in IDBI Bank where from it appears that the OP No 3 has withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,14,270 on 05.04.2017. The Chairman of the Purba Medinipur Agro Products Company Ltd also certified that the complainant was a member of their Farmers’ Group and he applied before the Horticulture Department of Purba Medinipur at Tamluk for a power tiller on Government Subsidy and he opened an A/C in the IDBI bank and deposited the amount which was withdrawn by the OP no. 3 but the power tiller had not been supplied.
14. From the above documents it appears that the complainant deposited the residue amount of Rs. 1,14,270/- out of total value of power amounting to Rs. 1,74,270/-. The complainant has asserted that the representative of the OP no. 3 and the OP no 1 prepared a challan for delivery of the power tiller and at the instruction of the OP Nos. 1 and 2, the OP no. 3 took signature of the complainant on a delivery challan on 24.03.2017 and gave assurance that the power tiller would be supplied shortly. But the same has not been supplied as yet.
15. All the Ops filed separate questionnaires against the examination in chief on affidavit filed by the complainant. The complainant gave answers to all such questions with consistency . We have evaluated the evidence on record ,but we have not found any contradiction in the answers of the complainant against the questionnaire put to him by each of the OPs
16. On the other hand, the specific defense of the OP no. 1and 3 is that the power tiller has been supplied to the complainant and the complainant has put his signature on the receipt. To establish such a plea the OP no 3 has filed copy of delivery challan at the stage of argument of the case. Apparently, the challan is dated 24.03.2017. On lens or close view of the challan it would be seen that it was already prepared on 11.02.2017,the date gets mention in the written version filed by the op-1, the architect of the whole episode. Let us revisit the written version ( para-7 )filed by the op-1 after completion of all formalities delivered the power tiller to the complainant on 11.02.2017 from op-no-3's office , So,it is evident that even the delivery challan was also prepared on 11.02.2017. Subsequently signature of the complainant was obtained on 24.03.2017 , resultantly there are interpolation on the place of date on the challan. It has not been mentioned by any of the ops from which place or go-down the power tiller was delivered. The driver of transport vehicle whose name appears on the challan could have been examined by the op-3 to establish his claim or it would have been clear from which go-down /office/place the power tiller was delivered. OP-1 is not a truthful witness . He has stated in his evidence that he has got no relation with Purba Medinipur Agro Producer Company, but he received appointment letter 10.07.2015 by putting his signature on it. All the above circumstances, plinth-ed the pillar of doubt about the claim of the ops-1 & 3 .
17. Coming to further appreciation of evidence we find that PW-2, the Chairman of Purba Medinipur Agro Producer Company, is an independent witness. He is well known to the OP-NO-1. He firmly stated that he made enquiry and came to know that the power tiller was not delivered to the complainant. Nothing adverse could be elicited from the reply against questionnaire to PW-2 so that his evidence can be disbelieved. Evidence of PW-1 has been corroborated by this independent witness PW-2. OP-3 has not produced any stock register or go-down register to highlight the entry regarding engine number chassis number of the power tiller delivered before this commission to establish that the power tiller was at all physically delivered or not merely a paper transaction. The very unusual aspect of the claim of the op-1 & 3 is that they have not mentioned the engine number and chassis number of the tractor delivered in their respective written version, such conduct of the Ops-1 & 3 strengthen the claim of the complainant that so called delivery challan is a manufactured paper showing only a delivery on paper and no physical delivery of the goods was done. It is very much clear from the material on record that op-3 withdrew the amount of Rs 1,14,270/-from the IDBI Bank but did not actually handover/ deliver the power tiller at all. This is deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-3. Now, the OP-3 is bound to return the withdrawn amount with interest and compensation for harassment and litigation costs. This Commission can not interfere with process of disbursement of the subsidy amount of Rs. 60,000/- as it relates to the policy matter and administrative decision of the authority of the Government.
18. Thus, the op-3 should pay Rs 1,14,270/- as towards the amount withdrawn from the account of the Complainant in the IDBI Bank , Rs.15,730/- as towards compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs; in addition to that he will get simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of this case till realization from op-3.
19. Both the points are answered accordingly.
20. In the result, the consumer case succeeds.
21. Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
22. That the Consumer Case No. 66 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
23. The OP-3 is directed to pay Rs 1,14,270/- as towards the amount withdrawn from the IDBI Bank , Rs.15,730/- as towards compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation costs to the Complainant. In addition to that Complainant will get simple interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of filing of this case till realization from the OP-3
24. The OP-3 is directed to issue a bank draft for the said amount within 45 days from date of this order in default the Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution.
- Let a copy of this judgment be supplied to the parties , each free of cost.
