1. The fact of the case of complainant is that he is a tribal and unemployed youth, being motivated by the O.P.No.1 to purchase a Mahindra Tractor 275 DI with an assurance of getting adequate subsidy, paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as advance to the O.P.No.2 for booking of Mahindra Tractor “Bhumiputra” vide receipt no. JYP_TD_SS_CR_338 dated 21.11.2014.  It is alleged that on 09.12.2014 the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- vide receipt no. JYP_TD_SS_CR_375 towards down payment and paid Rs. 15,000/- on 10.12.2014 vide receipt no. JYP_TD_SS_CR_358 and was financed with Rs. 3,90,000/- towards purchase of tractor and Rs. 60,000/- towards trolley/trailer 2 wheeler vide agreement no. 3477512 dated 19.12.2014 and agreement no. 3484640 dated 25.12.2014 respectively.  Further it is alleged that the Govt. approved rate of said vehicle is Rs. 5,64,000/- and subsidy amount against the said vehicle is Rs. 90,000/-, but the O.P.No.2 have illegally and arbitrarily taken Rs. 6,37,129/- and from the said excess amount gave Rs.90,000/- as subsidy.  Further he alleged that though there is provision of subsidy of Rs. 90,000/- towards purchase of trolley, but without giving such subsidy, the O.P. No.2 arbitrarily charged Rs 1,60,000/-.  It is also alleged that O.P.No.2 has taken Rs. 32,000/- towards registration fees which includes permit, fitness and insurance, but nine months have been passed, the O.P.No.2 did not provide the above such documents inspite of repeated approaches for which he could not run the vehicle and did not get it’s utility, whereas the complainant also paid Rs.29,100/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards dues and penalty on 06.07.2015.  The allegations of complainant is that only due to high handedness and arbitrary nature, he was put to severe financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment, thus alleging deficiency in service, he filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.P. No.2 to handover the registration documents i.e. insurance certificate, fitness, road permit and sale certificate alongwith subsidy amount with 18% p.a., Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation to him.

2. The O.P.No.1 after receiving the notice, though appeared in this case but initially did not file his counter version, however, during the hearing, he adopted the counter version filed by O.P.No.2 for his own defence and filed a memo to that effect.  On the basis of the grounds mentioned in the counter version, he denied his liability and prayed to dismiss the case against him.

3. On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 appeared in this case and filed their counter version denying all the allegations of Complainant, challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the case.  They contended that they are only authorized dealer of O.P.No.3 doing their business of sales, spares and service of the vehicle on commission basis but admitted that they have sold the alleged vehicle on Rs. 6,37,129/- and have given discount of Rs. 90,000/- which comes to Rs. 5,47,129/- on 11.12.2014 and also admitted that the complainant has purchased the alleged trolley on costs of Rs. 1,60,000/- without any subsidy and also admitted about the finance amount of Rs. 3,90,000/- by O.P.No.4.  Further they have contended that since the complainant has not purchased the alleged vehicle through Orissa Agro Industries Corporation (OAIC) and did not produce any documents in that regard, as such no subsidy is given to the complainant, however, on consideration they have given Rs. 90,000/- as discount and also contended that there is no provision of subsidy on purchase of trolley, hence no subsidy is extended to the complainant towards trolley.  Further they have contended that though they have received Rs. 32,000/- towards registration, they have provided the insurance certificate immediate after selling the vehicle and other documents were given on 06.07.2015, and thus denying their liability and with other contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case against them. 

4. On the other hand, the O.P. No.3 appeared in this case and filed their counter denying all the allegations of the complainant stating that though they are the manufacturer of alleged vehicle, and there is principal-to-principal relationship between them and the O.P.No.2 and there is also no privity of contract exist between the O.P.No.3 and complainant, thus denying their liability they prayed to dismiss the case against them.

5. The O.P.No.4 appeared in this case and filed their counter admitting the amount financed by them to the complainant towards purchase of tractor and trolley, but specifically denied that since there is no specific allegation made against them, they have prayed to dismiss the case against them. 

6. The O.P.No. 5 & 6 appeared in this case, filed their separate counter, taking the same pleas in their respective counter, have contended that they are ignorant about the purchase of alleged vehicle by the complainant and no transaction was made through them, and with other contentions, denying their liability, they prayed to dismiss the case against them. 

7. Complainant filed certain documents like :

1. Xerox copy of finance details against Tractor and Trolley.
2. Xerox copy of Govt. approved rate chart against the Tractor.
3. Xerox copy of payment details against tractor and trolley with other details.
4. Xerox copy of delivery challan vide no. 1132.
5. Xerox copy of insurance certificate.
6. Xerox copy of cash receipt dated 22.11.2014.
7. Xerox copy of cash receipt dated 09.12.2014.
8. Xerox copy of cash receipt dated 10.12.2014.
9. Xerox copy of cash receipt dated 06.07.02015.
10. Xerox copy of bank pass book.
11. Xerox copy of M.V. documents.

On the other hand, the O.P.No.2 has filed certain documents like :

1. Xerox copy of Registration Certificate of Tractor dated. 22.08.2015.
2. Xerox copy of Registration Certificate of Trolley dated 22.08.2015.
3. Xerox copy of single page of register showing the documents received by the complainant on dated 12.08.2015.

No other parties to the present litigation have filed any documents.

8. Heard from the parties at length through their respective A/Rs and perused the documents available in the record.
    
9. It is an admitted fact that being motivated by the O.P.No.1, the complainant has purchased the alleged tractor and trolley from the O.P.No. 2 on finance from the O.P.No.4.  It is also admitted fact that the complainant has deposited different amounts on different dates with the O.P.No.2 towards purchase of tractor and trolley with a hope to get the subsidy.  The allegation of complainant is that the approved Govt. rate for the alleged tractor is Rs. 5,64,900/- whereas the O.P.No. 2 has illegally extracted an amount of Rs. 6,37,129/- and out of the excess amount the O.P.No.2 has given Rs. 90,000/- as subsidy.  On the other hand, the contentions of O.P.No.2 is about the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the present case.  Further the contentions of O.P.No.2 is that the complainant directly purchased the alleged tractor and trolley from them and has not obtained any delivery order from Orissa Agro Industries Corporation for availing the subsidy.  Now the question arise before us to decide that
   1.Whether this Forum has got territorial jurisdiction to try over this case ?
   2. Whether the O.PNo.2 has extracted excess amount from the complainant besides the approved Govt. rate?
3. Whether the complainant has approached the O.P.No.5 & 6 for availing subsidy ?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed ?

10.   Coming to the first point, we would like to make it clear that always territorial jurisdiction is not a point of bar as far as service provide is concerned.  In the instant case, the version of complainant to the effect that the O.P.No.1 who is the authorized agent of O.P.No.2 (as admitted in his memo dated 03.11.2017) has motivated the complainant for purchase of tractor and trolley, is never been challenged by the O.P. No.1 and 2.  Further the O.P. No. 1 adopted the counter filed by the O.P. No. 2 wherein not a single word is specifically mentioned therein that the O.P.No.1 has not motivated the complainant, rather the O.P.No.1 is totally silent over the said matter.  It seems that the O.P.No.2 has engaged the O.P.No.1 for their marketing benefits in different areas including the place of complainant.  Hence it can be safely held that the O.P.No.1 has motivated the complainant at his place i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Though all the transaction made out of the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, but partly cause of action arose under the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, hence the present case is maintainable before this Forum.  In this connection we have fortified with a judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Bhandari Interstate carriers and another vrs M/s A.K.Synthetics has hold that “Jurisdiction – condition stipulated on the goods receipt that “all disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction” – Whether State Commission, Rajasthan had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint ? – State Commission held that there was no proof that the condition relating to jurisdiction was the result of a negotiated contract.  The complainant had not agreed with that condition.  It was further found that the condition that “all disputes subject to Delhi jurisdiction” did not exclude the jurisdiction of the State Commission which otherwise, it had under the law as a part of the cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of the State Commission – analysis of State Commission upheld.

11. Coming to the second point, it is observed that complainant has filed one document i.e. Govt. approved rate towards purchase of tractor and its equipments titled as “Approved Make, Model and Rate  of The Firms of Eligible Tractors” issued through Directorate letter no. 1779 dated 14.01.2015 to establish his submissions, whereas the O.Ps have never challenged the said documents, rather they kept silent over the same, as such, the said document remained unchallenged and unrebutted on the part of O.Ps.  Hon’ble National Commission has held in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”  Therefore, the versions of the complainant cannot be disbelieved at this stage.  It is seen from the said documents that the Govt. approved rate for the alleged tractor is for Rs. 5,64,900/- whereas, the O.P.No.2 has taken Rs. 6,37,129/- against the alleged vehicle, which seems that an excess amount of Rs. 72,229/- has been taken from the complainant either by means of cost of other vehicle or to exploit the poor tribal and illiterate complainant and the said excess amount have been credited into the account of O.P.No.2, as the complainant has deposited entire amount with the O.P.No.2.  Further during hearing, the complainant has submitted that the O.P.No.2 has not given any subsidy and the matter of Rs. 90,000/- as subsidy given by the O.P. No. 2 is a false one.  On the other hand, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 remained silent over the said matter.  It is also seen from the documents, that the O.P. No.1 & 2 have not produced any documents to prove the fact that they have given any discount to the complainant at any time, which clearly evident that the O.P. No. 1 & 2 joined hands in glove with each other and have extracted excess amount of Rs. 72,229/- (Rs. 6,37,129/- (-) Rs. 5,64,900/-) from the pocket of complainant in the name of subsidy.  Accordingly this answer also goes in favour of the complainant.    

12. Coming to the third point, we have carefully gone though the documents filed by the complainant as well as the counter version of the O.P. No. 5 & 6.  Complainant has not filed any such document to prove the allegations regarding the subsidy nor he obtained any documents from the O.P. No. 5 & 6 to that effect.  Whereas, the O.P. No.5 & 6 has strongly challenged the versions of complainant and vehemently argued that the transaction made between the complainant and the O.P. No. 1 & 2 are not in their knowledge, so also no transaction ever made through them.  During the time of hearing, the complainant vehemently argued that the O.P.No.1, who is the agent of O.P.No.2 has motivated him to purchase the alleged vehicle with an assurance to avail the subsidy scheme of Govt. and the O.P. No. 1 has grabbed the excess amount by misrepresenting him in the name of subsidy.  Whereas, the O.P. No. 1 is totally silent over the said matter during the hearing.  It seems that the O.P.No.1 in a fraudulent and mischievous manner misguided the complainant, which led to this present dispute.  However, inspite of repeated adjournments, the complainant could not able to produce any supportive documents to prove his allegations against the O.P. No. 5 & 6 and miserably failed on his part.  However as per strong submissions of Complainant, we feel, the O.P.No.1 has not made any documentation for availing subsidy by the complainant through the O.P. No. 5 & 6, otherwise, the complainant could have availed the subsidy, hence this answer goes in favour of the complainant.  

13. Further the allegations of complainant regarding to the effect that O.P. No. 2 has not provided the M.V. documents of the alleged vehicle to him, as such he could not run the vehicle on road.  Admittedly, the O.P. No. 2 submitted that at the time of delivery of the alleged vehicle, they have only issued the insurance certificate to the complainant but not other M.V. documents to the complainant to ply the vehicle on road and they have handed over the M.V. documents on 18.08.2015.  It is seen that after a gap of nine months, the O.P. No. 2 has handed over the M.V. documents to the complainant and till that date, the alleged vehicle was lying
     
14. From the above discussions, it is clear that the complainant is harassed by the O.P.No.1 & 2 by means of extracting the excess money from him and also not giving him the M.V. documents with immediate effect on the day when they delivered the vehicle to the complainant.  It is also well settled law that for any act of their agent, the company is liable.  As such the complainant deserves to be compensated and the point no. 4 is also goes in favour of complainant.      
     
15. Now coming to the point of liability, it is observed that the main allegations of the complainant are against the O.P.No.1 & 2 but not against the rest O.Ps.  Hence the O.P. No. 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant.  Hence this order.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. 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 O.Ps No. 3, 4, 5 & 6, no order against them.

Pronounced the order in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of May, 2018.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.