West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/137/2013

Sri Anupam Senapati - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Dealer of Mohindra, Star India Agencies - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.137/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 13/06/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. K. Palmal, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. S. M. Pal, Advocate.                                   

          

           Sri Anupam Senapati, S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Senapati, Vill. Kuliana, P.O.Malancha and P.S.

           Beliabera, District.  Paschim Medinipur……………Complainant

                                                           Vs.

1. The Authorised Dealer of Mohindra, Star India Agencies, Jhapatapur, Kharagpur, District: Paschim Medinipur
2. The Branch Manager, Jhargram Co-Operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. P.O. Jhargram, P.S. Jhargram, District. Paschim Medinipur.……………Ops.

 

          The case of the complainant, in short, is that as per quotation dated 20/12/2012 issued by the Op. No.1, Mahindra Dealer (Star India Agencies), the complainant availed of the loan of  10,74,351/-(Ten lakhs seventy four thousand three hundred fifty one) only sanctioned by the Op No.2 Jhargram Cooperative Bank by way of demand draft in favour of Op. no.1 on 14/03/2013. Upon receipt of the said amount, Op. no.1 made delivery of two tractors in favour of the complainant without Sale Certificate or No Objection Certificate enabling him for securing Registration of the tractors. Apart from that, the complainant time to time made over payment against proper receipt in question of purchase is the said tractors. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that in absence of Sale Certificate or No Objection Certificate, tractors are not fit for its use by the complainant as a registered owner. On several times, the complainant requested to the Op. no.1 for issuing Sale Certificate or No Objection Certificate for registration of the tractors and for refunding the excess payment. But the Op. did not response to the complainant. Ultimately the complainant as bonafide consumer moved before us for relief in term of the prayer made in the petition of complaint.

Contd…………P/2

         

- ( 2 ) -

              In this connection, the complainant submitted certain documents as per firisti namely quotation dated 20/12/2012for tractors, letter dated 14/03/2013 issued by Op. no.2 Jhargram Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Some payment receipts dated 29/03/2013, 23/08/2013 & 22/02/2113 of 74,000/- (Seventy four thousand) only, 16,000/- (Sixteen thousand) only & 2,92,000/-(Two lakhs ninety two thousand) only respectively.

             Op. no.1 Star India Agencies contested the case by filing written objection challenging that the complainant has no cause of action for filing this case. It is denied by the Op. no.1 that as quotation value the Op. no.2 issued demand draft dated 14/03/2013 in favor of Op. no.1 on behalf of the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant has made some overpayment amounting to 3,86,764/-(Three lakhs eighty six thousand seven hundred sixty four) only against money receipt issued by Op. no.1. In this connection, Op. no.1 made allegation that complainant with a view to cheat and defraud the Op. no.1. The quotation was made on 20/12/2012 for the amount of 13,66,351/-(Thirteen lakhs sixty six thousand three hundred fifty one) only and not for 14,11,116/-( Fourteen lakhs eleven thousand one hundred sixteen) only. However, as quotation, Op. no.2 issued payment of 10,74,351/- (Ten lakhs seventy four thousand three hundred fifty one) only on 08/04/2013, not 14/03/2013. In fact, the complainant by giving wrong information misled the Forum. The price of tractors was enhanced twice on 30/01/2013 and 01/04/2013 after the quotation dated 20/12/2012. Thus, the price of tractors on the date of payment was 12,34,250/-(Twelve lakhs thirty four thousand two hundred fifty) only. Therefore, there is, according to the Op No.1, no question of excess payment made by the complainant. The Op. no.1 never refused to issue Sale Letter of the tractors for it registration.  A tripartite meeting was held in the office of the Op. Bank in November 2013 where this Op. no.1 promised to issue Sale Letter in presence of the Branch Manager of Op. 2 Bank but the complainant did not turn up for collection of the Sale Letter etc. In fact, the complainant met with this Op only for twice i.e. on 29/03/2013 and 23/08/2013 for payment and not thereafter. It is alleged against the Op. no.2-Bank who plays with the rhythm of the complainant. Through the written objection supported by affidavit, the Op. no.1 claims that there is no deficiency of service and merit of the case against and as such the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                In this connection, Op. no.1 submitted some documents namely statement of demand, Receipt of delivery of tractors dated 01/10/2012, price revision dated 01/04/2013, 30/01/2013, 08/10/2012 and 10/04/2012.

               Op. no.2-Bank has by filing written objection, admitted the quotation dated 20/12/2012 issued by the Op. no.1 Star India Agencies and sanction of the loan on 14/03/1213 in favour of the complainant for purchasing tractors and its accessories. It is also admitted that the loan amount was

                                                                                                                                                                            Contd………….P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

paid to the satisfaction of Op. no.1 on 20/3/2013 on proper acknowledgement. In this context, no Sale Certificate or No Objection was issued in favour of the complainant from the end of Op. no.1 while the tractors delivered on 01/10/2012 against the quotation dated 20/12/2012.  The sale of tractors without Sale Letter is against the fare practice of the Op. no.1 in the subject of their business policy.  Stating the fact in the written objection, the Op. no.2-Bank claims for their no liability in the matter.  Rather, it is the liability of the Op. no.1 Star India Agencies towards the complainant.                                 

           Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

             All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interrelated each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision in the dispute.

             Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that entire payment has been made on 23/08/13 against the quotation dated 20/12/12 issued by the Op No.1 showing the price of the tractors `.10.74.351/-(Ten lakhs seventy four thousand three hundred fifty one) only.  After payment, the complainant received the delivery of the tractors on 28/03/13.  In spite of that, the Op No.1 has not issue any sale letter or no objection certificate.  Thus, it is argued by the Ld. Advocate that this is a clear case of deficiency of service and the Op No.1 should be directed for issuing no objection certificate and sale letter in terms of the prayer made by the complainant.

           Ld. Advocate for the Op No.1 made his argument with the help of documentary evidence claiming that the delivery of the tractors was made on 1/10/2012 duly received by the complainant.  It is admitted that the payment was made by the complainant on 8/04/2013 by delaying 189 days.  If that be so the Op No.1 is entitled to get interest @ 18% on account of such delay payment.

           In this connection, Ld. Advocate for the Op-Bank made his submission that the payment was made on 14/03/2013 to the Op no.1 on behalf of the complainant upon sanctioned of loan on 15/01/2014 in consideration of the quotation dated 20/12/2012.  Thus, it is also mentioned by the ld. advocate for the Op no.2 that the date of delivery of the tractor was on 1/10/2012 against the quotation dated 20/12/2012 and payment made on 28/03/2013 or 8/04/2013 is totally absurd and

Contd…………P/4

          

- ( 4 ) -

contradictory each other which as a whole exposes an ill-act of the Op. No.1 to mislead the Forum with an intention to claim excess money from the complainant.

          In order to support the case, the complainant has produced some documentary evidence as follows: –

1. Quotation dated 20/12/2012.
2. Receipts No 25824 dated 29/03/2013, No.25825 dated 29/03/2013, no.28295 and 23/08/2013.
3. Letter under memo no.399 dated 14/03/2013 issued by Op No.2 along with terms and conditions.
4. Advocates letter dated 29/08/2013 alongwith postal receipts and registered with A.D.
5. Letter under memo no.556 dated 23/10/2013 issued by op No.2.

 

        As against the petition of complaint, only one document bearing the relevant particulars is produced on behalf of Op No.1.

                 All the documents are in Xerox copies admitted by the parties vice versa without adducing oral evidence in the interest of speedy disposal of the case as to the aim and object Act.

        The entire evidence relating to the case of the parties is very carefully gone through.  It appears that neither party is found to have produced any document on delivery of the tractors.  Though there remains no dispute regarding the delivery of the tractors was made in favour of the complainant. Only dispute is that on which date the delivery was exactly effected to. The Op claims that the delivery was made on 1/10/2012 whereas by affidavit the complainant claims that it was on 28/03/2013.  Both parties have admitted the date of quotation, that is, 20/12/2012. Now upon such information, so far it is available, it is difficult to accept the date 1.10.12 as the exact date of delivery of the tractors prior to the date of quotation and payment.  So demand of extra price due to enhancement of the tractors as raised by the Op No.1 cannot be considered  in favour of the Op No.1.

  Upon the evidence it is admitted by the parties that the delivery of tractors was made as against the payment dated 28.03.2013 or 08.04.2013 according to the quotation dated 20/12/2012.  In this subject, we are very much anxious as to why the OP has not issued Sale Letter since the delivery of the teractors was admittedly done in favour of the complainant.  Alternatively it is very much surprising to us as to why and under what circumstances the Op No.1 did not or could not issue Sale Letter or No Objection Certificate on that very date of delivery of tractors.  In this aspect, no satisfactory ground or reason is found to have been assigned by the Op No.1 who delivered the tractors.

     Under the facts and circumstances, it is reasonable to accept the plea that the complainant

Contd………..P/5

 

 

- ( 5 ) -

suffers from the misdealings  of Op No.1 for not granting sale letter along with the delivery of tractors  and as such the complainant should be entitled to get relief as prayed for.

  Upon the facts and circumstances as discussed hereinabove, it is held and decided that there is deficiency of service from the end of the Op No.1.

 

Issue No.4:

            Following the findings and decision as regard to the issue nos. 1 to 3, the complainant should get direction in his favour in terms of the prayer made in the petition of the complaint against the op No.1.

  All the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant.

                          Hence

                                    It is ordered

                                                       that the case be and the same is allowed on contest without cost.

  The complainant is hereby entitled to get Sale Letter in respect of the tractors purchased as per quotation dated 20.12.2012.

  The Op NO.1, the authorized dealer of Mahindra Star India Agencies is hereby directed to hand over Sale Letter in respect of the tractors bearing its engine no.NPDW-3352&3353 within 30days w.e.f. this date.        

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur.