Date of filing :-28/08/2012
Date of Order :-12/04/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H
Consumer Complaint No. 17 of 2012.
Smt. Prabhasini Satpathy, wife of Birabara Satpathy, aged about 46(forty six) years, Occupation-House wife, permanent resident of Kanthipali, Po. Bhukta, Ps. Ambabhona, Dist. Bargarh, now r/o Bargarh, Ward No.10, Po/Ps/Tah/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
The Chairman, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., Pubjab Tractor Limited., Swaraj Equipment Seller (Mahindra and Mahindra), Chandigarh, At/Po/Dist.Chandigarh, Punjab, Industrial Area, S.A.S.Nagar, Pubjab Pin-180055 India.
Sri N. Prasad Rao, Proprietor-Cum-Sales Manager, Indrabati Motors (Saraj Tractor) Company Limited having its Office situated at Canal Avenue, Bargarh, Po.Ps.Tah.Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri S.P. Mishra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Sri H.C. Panda, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.12/04/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Sri P. K. Dash, Member:-
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986. The brief facts of the complaint is described here under.
The Complainant Smt. Prabhasini Satpathy, Ps. Ambabhona, Dist. Bargarh had purchased one Swaraj 733FE Tractor from the Opposite Party No.2(two) who happens to be the owner-cum-Proprietor and Sales Manager of Indrabati Motors (Swaraj Tractors) Company Ltd where as the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the manufacturer of the Swaraj Tractor. The registration numbers of the tractor and trolly bearing No. OR-17-D-4361 and OR-17-D-4362 respectively was purchased from the Opposite Party No.2(two) on payment of sale consideration money as of installment basis fixed at Rs. 18,207/-(Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred seven)only for tractor and Rs. 12,791/-(Rupees twelve thousand seven hundred ninety one)only for trolly and as such the Complainant became consumer of the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further the complaint contends that at the time of sale of the Tractor it was a guarantee condition that the Opposite Party No.2(two) would repair the tractor and remove if any defect found in it. That on Dt.16/09/2016 the tractor purchased by the Complainant became defective and defunct for which the Complainant drew attention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) and vehicle was sent to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for its repair but Opposite Party No.2(two) kept the tractor since Dt.01/02/2007 till Dt.31/03/2012 without any repair or removal of defects occurring there in for which the Complainant unable to ply the tractor and as of consequence could not able to repay the loan installments of the ICICI Bank which ultimately increased up to Rs. 15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only along with principal and interest. That the bank authorities regularly came to the Complainant and warned her to repay the loan installment for which the Complainant put to serious mental agony and harassment.
Further the Complaint contends that for such negligence of the Opposite Party No.2(two) by keeping the tractor under his custody without any repair and removal of defect the Complainant did not able to ply the tractor and could not able to repay the loan installments and sustained a loss of Rs.9,45,000/-(Rupees nine lakh forty five thousand)only for tractor and Rs.2,35,000/-(Rupees two lakh thirty five thousand)only for trolley in total Rs.11,80,000/-(Rupees eleven lakh eighty thousand)only. The Complainant on different occasion and times sine 2007 verbally requested the Opposite Party No.2(two) to do the needful to which the Opposite Party No.2(two) also has given oral assurance and did not act upon. At last a pleader notice on Dt.10/04/2012 was served on the Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Complainant and to which replied by the advocate for the Opposite Party No.2(two) to take recourse of law.
Further the complaint contends that for such negligence of the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant sustained both financially, mental agony and harassment and seeks the redressal of the Forum to direct the Opposite Party No.2(two) to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees fifteen lakh)only for all counts as against the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party No.2(two) against the Complainant.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the xerox copies of the following documents:-
Pleader Notice Dt.10/04/2012 issued to Opposite Party No.2(two). (2 sheets)
The postal/receipt and AD there of . (1 sheets)
Reply of the pleader Notice by the Opposite Party No.2(two) Dt.17/04/2012. (2 sheets).
Regd No. OR-17-D-4361 of tractor. (5 sheets)
Regd No. OR-17-D-4362 of trolley. (5 sheets)
Affidavit of Rabi Shankar Agrawala, documents invoice of Swaraj FE733 tractor, cash receipt, delivery challan quotation of tractor.
Affidavit of Jaya Kumar Sahu.
Affidavit of Birabara Sathpathy.
Affidavit of Prabhasini Sathpathy, Money receipt of Rs one lakh from her, delivery challan Dt.10/08/2005 and the loan statement in the name of Prabhasini Satpathy.
Affidavit of Basudev Purohit.
Affidavit of Sri Jay Kumar Sahu, Deed of agreement Dt.16/10/2006, copy of operators manual, R.C. Book of tractor in the name of the Complainant, List of Agro Product , List of models of mahindra Ltd, List of showroom Price list of models of Swaraj tractors, documents as to commission of Birabara Sathpathy, Sambad paper cutting Dt.16/03/2011. Quatation cum proforma invoice in the name of Gokula Padhan, Affidavits of Sanjeeb Sahu, Delivery challan in the name of Sanjeeb Sahu.
Affidavits of Bharat Phakir.
Affidavit of Bighneswar Mishra.
Loan statement in the name of Prabhasini Satpathy.
Affidavit of Prabhasini Satpathy Dt.07/10/2013.
Registration Certificate bearing No.OR 17 C 9305 and OR 17 C 9306 in the name of Raghubira Sathpathy.
Deposition of PW 1, Jay Kumar Sahu.
Deposition of PW 2, Sanjeeb Kumar Sahu.
Deposition of PW 3, Bighneswar Mishra.
Special Power of Attorney by Prabhasini Satpathy in the name of Birabara Satpathy.
List of Sabes Executive under Jay Kumar Sahu, Area of marketing Division Dt 11/12/2005.
Appointment letter at 31/03/2004.
Deduction of Tax by Indrabati Motors.
List of commission awarded to the agents by the Opposite Party No.2.
Deposite of Jay Kumar Sahu Dt.10/03/2015.
Deposite of Smt. Prabhasini Satpatht Dt.18/03/2015
Coupon of Swaraj Tractor containing the phone Nos of Birabara Satpathy.
Callender of 2005, 2007,2008.
Original letter bearing 98(2) Dt. 23/04/2004.
Original letter No. 612 Dt. 28/12/2004.
Original money receipt worth Rs. 4,27,695/-(Rupees four lakh twenty seven thousand six hundred ninety five)only.
Original request letter by Opposite Party No.2 to SBI, Padampur.
Original Envolope.
Original letter of Sarpanch Kubedega.
Original money receipt of ICICI, Bank.
Original letter of Opposite Party No.2.
Pan card.
Deposition of Birabara Sathpathy Dt. 12/08/2015.
Operator Manual of company.
Tractor No OR 17 D 4361 and Trolly No. OR 17 D 4362 of Prabhasini Satpathy.
Tractor No. OR 17 C 9305 and Trolly No. OR 17 C 9306.
Sambad News paper Dt.16/03/2011.
Letter addressed to BM ICICI Bank by Complainant.
Original unpaid balance of tractor.
Delivery challan Dt.15/09/2004 issued to Rabi Shankar Agrawal.
Being noticed Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared through his counsel and filed his version denying almost all the allegations of the complaint.
The version of the Opposite Party No.2(two) contends that Opposite Party No.1(one) is the manufacturer of Swaraj Motors wherein the Opposite Party No.2(two) is the authorized dealer of the Opposite Party No.1(one). That on the basis of bank draft received from the ICICI Bank Ltd i.e the financier of the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2(two) had supplied one Swaraj Tractor fitted with trailor with due delivery supported by necessary receipt/invoice Dt.03/08/2005 having acknowledgment of the Complainant there in.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version has categorically denied the allegations of the Complaint that there was any guaranteed condition or agreement between the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2(two)by virtue of which the Opposite Party No.2 would repair the above tractor and remove the defects if noticed and that on Dt.16/09/2006 when the vehicle became defective and defunct, the Complainant drew the attention of the Opposite Party No.2(two)to remove the defects of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.2(two) kept the vehicle in his custody without repairing the same by removing the defects occurring there in and that for such act of negligence in rendering service by the Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. non repairing of the tractor and keeping it with him for which the Complainant unable to ply the vehicle as of consequence she could not able to repay the loan installments of the bank which accumulated to Rs.11,80,000/-(Rupees eleven lakh eighty thousand)only which the Opposite Party No.2(two) is liable to compensate. Further allegation of the Complaint that for such non rendering of service by the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant perturbed and mentally disturbed for which she claims compensation and damages of Rs. 3,20,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty thousand)only from the Opposite party No.2(two)which is denied in the version of Opposite Party No.2(two). Further allegation of the Complaint that the Complainant through her husband at different times and occasions since 2007 and in different years had verbally requested the Opposite Party No.2(two) to do the needful and the Opposite Party No.2(two) had consented to her request with oral assurance are specifically denied by the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version.
Further the Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version contends that the Complainant never intimated him about the defect in the vehicle and for its removal and the vehicle was never in his custody and with some false allegations in order to defame the name and fame of the Opposite Party No.2(two), the Complainant has filed this Complaint and the Opposite Party No.2(two) never committed any negligence in rendering service to the Complainant in any manner and the Complainant is equally liable to compensate the Opposite Party No.2(two) and to pay cost of litigation besides dismissal of the complaint against the Opposite Party No.2(two).
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in support of his defense and contentions relied upon the xerox copies of the following documents:-
Copy of retail-invoice-cum-delivery note Dt.03/08/2005 having acknowledgment of the Complainant as to receipt of tractor and trailor.
Copy of Sale certificate Dt.03/08/2005 with acknowledgment of the Complainant.
Reply letter Dt.17/04/2012 of the Opposite Party No.2(two) to the pleader notice Dt.10/04/2012 of the Complainant.
Pleader Notice Dt.10/04/2012 of the Complainant send to the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Any other document found relevant afterward.
Xerox copy of Delivery challan issued by Indravati Motors in the name of Rabi Shankar Agrawal.
AIR 2013 (SC) P 58.
AIR 1995 (SC) P 2152.
AIR 1989 (SC) P 705.
2005 SAR (civil) 103 (SC).
AIR 2007 (NOC) 1852 Mad P-58.7
Office copy of letter Dt. 17/04/2012.
Regd. letter Dt.10/04/2012 sent to Opposite Party No.2.
AD showing letter Dt.17/04/2014.
Money receipt Dt.17/04/2012.
Retail invoice Dt. 03/08/2005.
Sale certificate Dt.03/08/2005.
Deposition of Sri Hari Prasad Pattnaik.
Deposition of Umesh Kumar Yadav.
Being noticed the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through the counsels and filed his version as follows :-
The version of the Opposite Party No.1 contends that Opposite Party No.2 is the dealer of Opposite Party No.1 who is the manufacturing company of Swaraj Tractors and as a authorized dealer the Opposite Party No.2 is entitled to sale Swaraj Tractors to intending purchasers. Further version contends that the Opposite Party No.1 has been improperly added as a party to this Complaint as in the Complaint no specific allegation is made against him and to defame the company (Swaraj Tractors) of the Opposite Party No.1, so also financial loss to the dealer in his marketing area, the Complainant has lodged this Complaint. The Opposite Party No.1 in the back drop of this case has sought for a direction of the forum to pay cost of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only to him by the Complainant and to struck out this Opposite Party from this Complaint.
List of documents filed by the Opposite Party No.1:-
Power of Attorney executed by Companys Swaraj Division infavour of Mr. Amit Kumar Raghav. (Three sheets)
Gone through the entire case record consisting of voluminous affidavits, petitions, objections, deposition of witnesses, Memo of arguments, Citations, documents and hearing the parties at length, the forum found the issues likely to be adjudicated in this Complaint are as follows :-
Whether the allegations of the Complaint are substantiated by cogent evidence and the Opposite Parties are liable for deficiency in rendering service to the Complainant under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 ?
For what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
The Opposite Party No.2 on Dt.03/08/2005 had sold a Swaraj Tractor of make and model FE 733 along with trolly to the Complainant receiving the price of the tractor financed through ICICI Bank, Sambalpur, having registered under the R.T.A. Bargarh vide registration No. OR 71D 4361 (tractor) and OR 17 D 4362 (trolly). As such the Complainant became the Consumer of the Opposite parties as per the provision of law in Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is not disputed by the Opposite Parties.
Answering Issue No.1
The gist of the Complaint in magnetic approach are as follows :-
At the time of sale of the said tractors to the Complainant it was guarantee condition that the Opposite Party No.2(two) will repair the above tractor purchased by the Complainant and remove any defect if noticed.
On Dt.16/09/2006 the said vehicle became defective and defunct for which the Complainant drew the attention of Opposite party No.2(two) for rectification of defect.
The vehicle (tractor) was sent to the company of tractor for repair but the Opposite Party No.2 kept it with him without rendering it for removal of defect.
Due to non repairing of the tractor, the Complainant could not ply it and could not repay the loan installments of the financial bank which accumulated into a very huge amount of loan along with interest.
The Bank authorities were running to the Complainant for repayment of loan amount for which she was mentally stressed and disturbed.
The tractor was lying with Opposite Party No.2 since Dt.01/02/2007 till 31/03/2012 to which the Opposite Party No.2 is liable for non payment of loan dues of the Complainant.
The Complainant sustained a loss of outstanding loan dues of Rs.11,80,000/-(Rupees eleven lakh eighty thousand)only for the negligence of Opposite Party No.2.
The Complainant is entitled for Compensation of Rs. 3,20,000/-(Rupees three lakh twenty thousand)only as a mark of mental agony and harassment from the Opposite Party No.2.
The Complainant through her husband at different times and occasion since 2007 in different years verbally requested the Opposite Party No.2 to do the needful to which the Opposite Party No.2 had given oral assurance and did nothing.
As the forum was locked out, after reopening of the forum the Complaint was filed.
To substantiate those allegations the Complainant has not filed any written agreement or documents as to fact that there was any agreement between the Opposite Party No.2(two) and Complainant under which conditions, the Opposite Party No.2 was obliged to repair or remove the defect found in the tractor after purchase. For the fact that on Dt.16/09/2006 the tractor became defective and defunct which wasreported to the Opposite Party No.2 for removal of defect, no such written letters or documents filed by the Complainant as to this effects before the forum.
The fact that the Opposite Party No.2 without sending the vehicle to the company for rectification of defect and kept it with him for such a long period with out removing the defect, to corroborate this allegation no such evidence adduced by the Complainant in any manner. For the defunct and deroad of the tractor, the husband of the Complainant admitted in his cross-examination that he has not informed it through writing to the R.T.A., Bargarh, hence the contention of the Complainant that due to non repairing of the tractor, she could not ply it and could not repay the unpaid loan is not admitted in my manner. So far as the loan repayment is concerned, it is the bilateral terms and conditions between the loanee (Complainant) and financier. (ICICI, Bank) and the Opposite party No.2 has no role in it and can not be held responsible for the default in repayment of loan installments by the Complainant. More over the Complainant to substantiate her allegations of the Complaint has not filed any written documents and adduced any cogent evidences and trying to make a case against the Opposite parties in fume.
The Complainant beyond his pleading in the Complaint, has tried to make and assert an allegation against the Opposite Party No.2 that this tractor bearing Engine number and Chassis number which is sold to her by the Opposite party No.2 was earlier sold to Rabi Shankar Agrawal of Padampur and to that effect has filed a number of affidavits, and to create a dubious conduct of the Opposite Party No.2 has also filed so many documents. The affidavits sworn by so many deponents have not been examined and cross examined, so the contentions of their affidavits are not taken into account and the deponents who have deposed before the forum during their cross examination have totally made contradictory statements and the contradictory evidence of the witnesses are also not reliable and taken into account. More over the husband of the Complainant was working under the Opposite Party No.2(two) since 2003 till 2010 as per his cross examination before the forum and that he had persued Rabi Shankar Agrawala of padampur to purchase the Swaraj FE 733 model tractor and Rabi Shankar Agrawal purchased the tractor and due to non payment of remaining dues to the Opposite Party No.2(two) the said tractor was pulled back to the Opposite Party No.2 from the custody of Rabi Shankar Agrawal and the same tractor with same Engine number and chassis number was sold to Prabhasini Satpathy who happens to be his wife, any prudent person shall belief that all the transaction were made in the knowledge and active connivance of Sri Birabara Satpathy. Birabara Satpathy and Prabhasini Satpathy admitted in their cross examination that two different tractors with different engine numbers and chassis numbers were sold to the Complainant and Rabi Shankar Agrawal by the Opposite Party No.2. Even if let us for the sake of argument if any forgery, fraud, cheating is adopted by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for selling of the tractor to the Prabhasini Sathpathy, why did not she filed a case against the Opposite parties in the proper forum of law immediately and waited for such a long period to file this Complainant before the Consumer forum is totally unreliable and dis belived. The Complainant was gone out of track of his pleading and tried to prove his case beyond his pleading which is against the provision of law and this court has no Jurisdiction to try those matter in summary trial under the provision of law enunciated in the Consumer protection Act-1986.
Hence the Complainant is miserably failed in substantiating with cogent evidence to prove his allegation of deficiency in rendering service by the Opposite Parties to him under the provision of Consumer protection Act-1986. This issue is answered in negative.
Answering issue No.2
As the Complainant has failed to show any cause of action to bring a Complaint successful against the Opposite Parties and she has miserably failed in substantiating her allegations of Complaint as per the pleading hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed and the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.
O R D E R
Delving deep into the matter, pleadings ,evidence available in the case record, the forum unanimously arrived at a decision and dismissed the Complaint being devoid of any merit.
Complaint disposed of accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
