Adv.for the complainant-. Sri J.k.sahu & S.K.Paricha

         Adv.for the O.P   - Sri  K.C.Mishra.

                                   Date of filing of the case:-  01.02.2016

                                                                                               Date of order                    :-  22.02.2017

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President

1.  The case of  the  complainant  is that, believing  the words of the OP. No.1 that 50%  subsidy  is      

available on  purchase of the  tractor, the  complainant  intends to purchase  a new Holland 4710 model tractor and  a 1500 model  trolley  from  the OP No.1 and accordingly  she paid  Rs.2,00,000/- towards down payment on dt. 23.04.2014. But  the OP.No.1 did not delivered  the tractor  and trolley  to the complainant  and  further  demanded  Rs.1,40,000/-  towards  50% price  of the tractor. To fulfill  this  demand the complainant  paid the  said amount on three installments  i.e on dt.13.05.2014,14.08.2014 and  on dt.27.12.2014. thereafter the  OP No.1 on dt.27.12.2014 delivered  the  tractor and trolley  to the complainant without  providing  the relevant  papers like sale  invoice, Sale Certificate, Vehicle  delivery  receipt, Service Book, Temporary  Registration Certificate and insurance  papers. The  complainant  alleges  that, instead of  providing  the subsidy  amount the  Op. No.1 on dt.01.06.2014  deceitfully took her to OP.2 for  executing a loan agreement  for  a loan amount  of Rs.4,50,000/-, without explaining  the  contents  of the  agreement. Lastly   the  complainant  on dt.01.01.2016 requested  the  OP No.1 for delivery of paper , but  she was  refused  to  the same. Hence  alleging  deficiency  in service  and  unfair trade  practice, the  complainant  has  preferred  this   case  against  the  OPs.

2.        Although the OP No.1 has  appeared,  he did not  choose   to  file his  written version  and has no specific  case  to contest  the case Op No.2  contested the case by filing   his  written  version. According  to Op No.2  the  complainant  has entered  into   a loan –Cum- hire purchase agreement   bearing  No.PG/0174/A/13/000006 on dated  01.06.2014 and after observing  all formalities  the  OP2  financed  an amount  of Rs.4,50,000/- which   is repayable  in 54 equal monthly  installments and  hence  the  Op2  is acting  as per the  terms  and conditions of the  loan agreement. The  OP2 denied all  the allegations of the  complainant  and claims  for dismissal of the case.

3.      Heard  the complainant Perusd the  written  version filed  by the  OP.2  and documentary   evidence  available  on record.

4         The  specific  case  of the complainant  is  that , she  was misrepresented   by the   OP No.1 and had purchased  the  tractor and  trolley with the  hope  that she will  entitled  to 50%  subsidy. But  the material available  on record  shows  that , the  complainant has paid  Rs.3,40,000/-  on  different  dates  for the price of the  tractors and trolley  and  had entered  in to a loan- cum -hire purchase agreement for  the rest amount. The tractor  and trolley  was delivered  to the  complainant  on dt 27.12.2014 and   the complainant  was  repaying  the loan amount  @ Rs.13,932/- per  month  but the complainant has not  discovered  the truth since  27.12.2014  to till  01.01.2016.  These evidence  available  on record,  shows that the complainant has not able  to prove   specifically the  allegation of  misrepresentation. Therefore  it  is  believed  that , the  complainant  had purchased  the tractor and  trolley from the OP No.1 with  the financial  assistance  of the  Op No.2 under a  loan agreement  and  the complainant  is bound   by its  terms and conditions.

5          The next  allegation of the  complainant   is that, she  was not provided  with  the relevant  papers from the  OP No.1 by the  time of  delivery  of the tractor and trolley. There is no evidence  on record  either by way of affidavit or otherwise  to show  that , the  relevant  papers were handed  over   to the complainant by  the time of  delivery of the  tractor. It is  the bound  down duty of the  OP No.1 to supply  sale invoice, sale  certificate, Vehicle  delivery receipt, Temporary  registration  Number and  insurance papers to the complainant . In the absence  of the documents  the complainant is not  able to  use  the vehicle  for her agricultural purpose   and is paying  the  EMI  and  hence  she is sustaining  financial  loss and is entitled  to  compensation.

                                                                                ORDER

                  The OP No.1  is direct to supply  all the documents relating to sale  of tractor and  trolley to the  complainant within  one month  from  the date of receipt  of this  order. The OP No. 2 is directed  not to demand  the interest on the loan amount  of the  complainant  from 27.12.2014 till the  disposal of this case i.e  22.02.2017. Further both the Ops  are directed  to pay jointly and severally  Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) towards coast and compensation to the complainant  within one month  from  the date of receipt of this order.

               Accordingly  the case is disposed off. 

ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 22^ND   DAY OF FEBRUARY’2017.

    Sd/-                                                                   Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

 (S.Rath)                                                           (G.K.Rath)                                                         (A.K.Purohit)

MEMBER.                                                         MEMBER.                                                           PRESIDENT