The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Branch Manager, Orissa Gramya Bank, Anka, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Proprietor, National Motors, Januganj Golai, Balasore. 

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant being a small farmer and in order to maintain his livelihood, requested O.P No.1 to finance for purchase of a Sonalika Grand Track DI-20 tractor for agricultural purpose. Accordingly, the O.P No.1 sanctioned loan in favour of the Complainant, where the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.85,000/- (Rupees Eighty five thousand) only towards earnest money and fixed deposit of Rs.1,87,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty seven thousand) only for security. The O.P No.2 prepared a bill on 13.09.2014, thereby the O.Ps delivered the same vehicle to the Complainant without Trolly because of non-availability of the same. On several request made by the Complainant, the O.P No.1 supplied Xerox copy of R.C book and insurance papers, but without loan agreement and Trolly. In the mean time, the said tractor was defective, where the Complainant reported to the O.P for repair and on 18.11.2015, thereby the O.P No.1 served a letter to O.P No.2 on 19.11.2015 with a request to repair the same, but the O.P No.2 did not pay any heed to it and thereafter, the O.P No.1 threatened the Complainant to pay the loan installment regularly or else he will seize the said vehicle. In the absence of original papers of the vehicle and defective in nature, the Complainant could not ply the vehicle and derived no income, but the O.P No.1 recovered loan installments of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty thousand) only from the Complainant and misappropriated subsidy amount. On an enquiry, the Complainant came to know that the copy of R.C book supplied by O.P No.1 is a fake one and belongs to a motor cycle, which he disclosed the matter to the O.Ps, but the O.P No.1 did not respond. Thereby, the Complainant took the matter to the Collector, Balasore and other Officials and lastly applied to R.T.O, Balasore through R.T.I to obtain attested copy of R.C book, confirming the same as a fake document on receipt of the same from R.T.O, Balasore. Prior to this, the Complainant sent a legal notice through his Advocate to the O.Ps, which the O.P No.1 received and O.P No.2 denied to receive. Such type of activities made by the O.Ps by an unfair method caused mental agony, pecuniary loss and also debarred the Complainant to avail the opportunities of Govt. to the farmer. The cause of action arose on 21.03.2017 when the Complainant sent Advocate notice. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of the said vehicle with a new one or to refund the down payment and other money collected from the Complainant as well as compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.    

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but they have neither appeared nor filed their written version in this case. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.

                    4. In order to substantiate his 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 a fake registration no. has been intimated to him by the O.Ps, which was confirmed by him as a fake one, being a registration no. of a motor cycle as confirmed from R.T.O, Balasore. Perused the Xerox copy of such documents available in the case record. Furthermore, when the vehicle was found defective, the Complainant has intimated O.P No.2 through O.P No.1-Bank for repair of the same, but no step has been taken by the O.P No.2 in this regard. So, in this circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for replacement of the vehicle or to refund the down payment and other money collected from the Complainant along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.Ps are set ex-parte in this case, for which the entire claim of the Complainant remained uncontroverted.

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, this Forum come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to direct the O.P No.2 to replace the alleged vehicle by a new one of same make and model with valid registration and the Complainant is to repay all the outstanding loan amount to the O.P No.1 on the date of receiving of the new vehicle. Further, the O.P No.2 is directed to pay 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 and failure to comply the same will carry interest @ 10% per annum, which will meet the ends of Justice in this case. Hence, Ordered:-      

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed in part on ex-parte against the O.Ps with cost. The O.P No.2 is directed to replace the alleged vehicle by a new one of same make and model with valid registration and the Complainant is to repay all the outstanding loan amount to the O.P No.1 on the date of receiving of the new vehicle. Further, the O.P No.2 is directed to pay 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 @ 10% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps as per Law, in case of failure by the O.Ps to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 23rd day of October, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.