Complaint filed on: 07.02.2014
Complaint Disposed on:08.09.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.12/2014
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT/S:
1.H.R.Shivakumar
S/o H.G.Ramappa Naika,
Aged about 42 years,
Agriculturist.
2.H.G.Ramappa Naika,
S/o Giriya Naika,
Aged about 74 years,
Both are R/o Honagaru
Village, Koppa Taluk,
Chikmagalur District.
(By Sri/Smt. Hareesh Singatagere, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT/S:
1.The Karnataka Bank Ltd.,
Kammaradi Village,
Koppa Taluk.
Represented by its Manager.
2.The Assistant Director of Agriculture,
Department of Agriculture, Balagadi,
Koppa Town, Chikmagalur District.
3.Kaveri Enterprises,
M.S.D.M. Complex, Near bus stand,
Koppa Town, Chikmagalur District.
Represented by its Proprietor.
(OP-1 - By Sri/Smt. T.R.Harish/H.C.Krishna, Advocate)
(OP-2 By DGP)
(OP-3 -Exparte)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in service in selling the tractor and trailer to the low price in public auction against the market value and also not paying the subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/-. Hence, Complainant prays for direction against Op 1 to give clearance certificate by receiving balance loan amount of Rs.50,000/- and direction against Op 2 to pay subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- and also direction against Op 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency in service and other expenses in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant is an agriculturist and Op 3 is the dealer of tractor and trailer and other agricultural implements. In the year 2008 Op 3 approached the complainant and his father and informed that they would make arrangements for purchase of the tractor and trailer by advancing the loan from Op 1. Op 3 also assured that Op 2 would give subsidy towards purchase of the vehicle amounting to Rs.60,000/-. Believing the words of Op 3 complainant agreed to purchase the tractor and trailer from Op 3 for Rs.2,93,690/-. The Op 3 directed the complainant to pay down payment of Rs.93,960/- and remaining amount would be sanctioned by Op 1 as a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly, complainant purchased the tractor and trailer from Op 3, who made all arrangements including availing a loan from Op 1 and getting subsidy from Op 2. There afterwards, the Op 3 prepared several documents in order to avail a loan from Op 1 and to get subsidy amount from Op2. The complainant paid Rs.93,960/- as a down payment to Op 3 in the month of March 2008 and tractor and trailer was delivered to complainant in the month of May 2008 and Op 1 had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant which was directly paid to Op 3 towards purchase of the tractor. The father of the complainant (Complainant No.2) stood as a guarantor and complainant registered the tractor and trailer in his name and registered No.KA 18 TA 0556.
The complainant had paid Rs.90,960/- towards the loan provided by Op1 and due to financial problems complainant could not repay the loan as per the schedule, for which on 09.02.2012 the Op 1 seized the tractor and trailer of the complainant without any prior notice. There afterwards, in order to adjust the loan account after two months from the date of seizure of the tractor, the Op 1 informed the complainant that the tractor would be sold at the price of Rs.90,000/- and if Op 3 paid the subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- the complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- towards closure of the loan account. The complainant under the impression that the said tractor was sold by Op 1, but complainant received a notice in the month of January 2014 informing that the tractor and trailer was sold only for Rs.41,000/- and demanded for payment of the balance loan amount. The complainant surprised by looking at the notice and tractor was sold after two years of the seizure, for which he made an enquiry with Op 1, but Op 1 refused to give full details of the transactions, the Op 2 also refused to inform with respect to the subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- to whom the said amount was paid, even the Op 1 informed that the subsidy amount was not received by them, further Op 3 also not informed about the subsidy amount.
Further the Op 1 informed the complainant that, he is in due of Rs.2,50,000/- after appropriating the proceeds of the sale of the tractor and trailer. The Op 1 had sold the seized tractor after lapse of two years and also sold below market value, if Op 1 acted diligently and sold the tractor and trailer at the earliest point of time it would have definitely fetched value of Rs.90,000/-, but instead of that Op 1 sold the vehicle for Rs.41,000/- only. Hence, Op 1 made the complainant to suffered loss to the tune of Rs.49,000/-. Hence, Op 1 rendered deficiency in service in selling the tractor and trailer for lowest price and there is a deficiency in service on the part of Op 2 and 3 in not give the subsidy amount to the complainant. Hence, prays for direction against Op 1 to issue clearance certificate by accepting Rs.50,000/- towards loan and direction against Op 2 to 3 to pay subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version. Op 3 not appeared before this Forum, hence, placed exparte.
4. Op 1 in his version has contended that, at the request of the complainant this Op has sanctioned the loan for purchase of the tractor and trailer as per the terms and conditions laid down in the sanction order and they have sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and the same was directly paid to the Op 3, who is the dealer of the tractor and trailer. The father of the complainant (complainant No.2) stood as a guarantor to the said loan and no third party involved in sanctioning or disbursing the loan as alleged in the complaint. The loan was given to the complainant at his own request only.
The complainant has paid Rs.90,960/- towards repayment of the loan. The vehicle of the complainant was seized by agents of this Op with a notice dated 27.06.2011 as he was a defaulter in regularly paying the loan amount and complainant also informed that the sale proceeds would be credited to the loan account. When this Op had made arrangements to sell the tractor and trailer unit, complainant approached this Op and requested that he will suffer great hardship if the tractor and trailer was sold and requested this Op that he was remitted the loan amount in the short while. At the request of the complainant the sale of tractor was deferred and he was given a sufficient time to repay the loan amount. Even after giving ample time the complainant had not repaid the loan amount, even before the sale of the tractor the complainant was personally informed that the tractor and trailer would be sold for recovery of the loan. As there is no response from the complainant this Op after getting tractor and trailer unit valued sold the same and realized the sum of Rs.41,000/- towards his loan. The copy of the valuation report was also given to the complainant personally before the sale of the tractor unit. The complainant has not raised any objections at the time of sale of the tractor and trailer and even has not raised any objections to the valuation report.
This Op has given all necessary informations on all stages to the complainant and they also given a notice dated 27.06.2011 and 21.01.2013 to that effect. The tractor and trailer was sold belatedly only at the request of complainant. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op.
Op 1 further contended that, they do not know that complainant has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.49,000/- the delay in sale of tractor and trailer unit is only due to complainant and this Op also informed the details with respect to the amount due in the loan account of the complainant. This Op is not responsible for any non receipt of subsidy amount. The complainant is in due to the extent of sum of Rs.2,59,148/- as on 31.03.2014. Unless the said loan account was cleared by complainant they are not able to issue clearance certificate. Hence, Op 1 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Op 2 in his version has contended that, there is no any relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and this Op. The complainant has not made any transactions with respect to the purchase of the tractor from Op 3. On 18.02.2009 the subsidy amount payable to complainant was given to Op 3 and has obtained receipt from Op3. The list of the beneficiary of the subsidy amount was also published. This Op has paid the subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- to Op 3 on production of credit bill. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this Op. The complainant without any basis has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service in order to gain wrongfully and they are not liable to pay any compensation or subsidy amount to the complainant as prayed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
6. Complainant 1 and 2 filed affidavits and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Op 1 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.10. Op 2 filed memo with 4 documents.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPS?
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
9. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
10. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op 1 and 2, there is no dispute that complainant has purchased a tractor and trailer from Op 3 by availing the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from Op 1. After purchase of the tractor and trailer complainant had paid Rs.90,960/- towards loan and during non-payment of the installments the Op 1 seized the vehicle and sold it for Rs.41,000/- only for below the market value, the Op 1 sold after lapse of two years from the seizure. Hence, alleges he suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.49,000/- due to sale of the tractor belatedly.
Complainant further alleges that, Op 2 has not paid a subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant and even Op 3 also not informed about the subsidy amount. The Op 3 being the dealer of the tractor had assured to make arrangements to receive subsidy amount of Rs.60,000/- from Op 2, but Op 3 also failed to pay the subsidy amount received from Op 2. Hence, alleges a deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 to 3.
11. On contrary Op 1 has taken a contention that, on the request of complainant himself they have sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant and complainant had only paid Rs.90,960/- towards the loan and had not paid the installments regularly even inspite of demand made by Op. Subsequently, they have seized the vehicle by issuing the notice dated 27.06.2011 and sold the vehicle in the public auction for Rs.41,000/- and the same was adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. Even after the adjustment of the said amount to the loan the complainant is in due of Rs.2,59,148/- as on 31.03.2014. Hence, submits no deficiency in service.
Op 1 further contended that, the sale of the tractor and trailer was delayed only due to complainant as he requested this Op to postpone the public auction and undertaken to pay the loan amount, but inspite of providing sufficient time the complainant had not repaid the loan. Hence, finally they have sold the tractor and trailer as per the valuation report. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
12. The complainant has produced RC marked as Ex.P.1, Three receipts issued by Op 3 for having purchase of the tractor and trailer marked as Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4, Letter issued by Op 1 to complainant 2 dated 18.01.2014 marked as Ex.P.5 and ‘B’ register extract issued by RTO, Chikmagalur marked as Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 in support of his claim.
Op 1 also produced Paper publication in Hosa Digantha dated 01.01.2014 marked as Ex.R.1, Another Paper publication in Tunga Varthe dated 03.01.2014 marked as Ex.R.2, Valuation Report dated 17.02.2012 marked as Ex.R.3, Another Valuation Report dated 22.11.2013 marked as Ex.R.4 and 4 pages of Public Auction proceedings marked as Ex.R.5, Letter issued by Op 1 to Complainant 2 marked as Ex.R.6, Letter issued by Complainant 1 and 2 dated 13.08.2011 and 13.03.2012 to Op 1 marked as Ex.R.7 and Ex.R.8 respectively, Another letter dated 03.09.2013 marked as Ex.R.9 and Statement of loan a/c of the complainant marked as Ex.R.10 in support of his defense.
13. On going through the Paper publication i.e., Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2 it is clear that the Op 1 has issued a paper publication for public auction of the tractor and trailer belonging to complainant. It is admitted by the complainant that they have requested the Op 1 to postpone the public auction as per their letters i.e., Ex.R.7, Ex.R.8 and Ex.R.9, on going through the said letters the complainants have categorically authorized the Op 2 to sell the tractor if they fails to pay the loan amount within the stipulated time. Hence, it is clear that the sale of the tractor was postponed due to request made by complainant 1 and 2, but the complainants have not made any arrangements to pay the loan amount to Op 1, even as highlighted by Op 1 complainant had not made any objections to the Valuation report given by surveyor, the Op 1 has produced public auction sale proceedings marked as Ex.R.5, wherein we noticed one Rajesh has bid the tractor for highest amount of Rs.41,000/- accordingly the tractor was sold to the said person for Rs.41,000/- and the said amount was adjusted to loan account of the complainant. Whereas the complainant in his prayer has prayed for direction against Op 1 to issue clearance certificate after receipt of loan amount of Rs.50,000/-, but the complainant has not established before this Forum that he has only in due to Rs.50,000/- towards loan amount. The complainant 1 and 2 have themselves authorized the Op 1 to sell the tractor and trailer and directed the Op 1 to adjust the loan account by receiving the proceedings of the sale as per Ex.R.8. Hence, we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op 1 in selling the tractor and trailer of the complainant for default in payment of the loan amount by complainant.
Further, complainant alleges a deficiency in service on the part of Op 2 and 3 in not pay the subsidy amount to him, whereas the receipts produced by Op 2 discloses that the subsidy amount was paid to Op 3 who is the dealer of the tractor and trailer, but in turn had sold the tractor to the complainant the Op 2 had paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- to Op 3 on production of the credit bill of Op 2, accordingly, the amount was paid to the Op 3 and Op 3 had issued a receipt dated 18.02.2009 for having receipt of Rs.60,000/- from Op 2. The said amount was paid by Op 2 to Op 3 on production of credit bill. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of Op 2 and 3 with respect to the allegation for non-receipt of the subsidy amount. The complainant also failed to establish a deficiency in service on the part of Op 2 and 3 also. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainants is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 8th day of September 2017).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Copy of the R.C.
Ex.P.2 to 4 - Copy of three receipts.
Ex.P.5 - Copy of letter dtd:18.01.2014.
Ex.P.6 & 7 - ‘B’ extract.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Paper publication dtd:01.01.2014.
Ex.R.2 - Another Paper publication dtd:03.01.2014.
Ex.R.3 - Valuation Report dtd:17.02.2012.
Ex.R.4 - Another Valuation Report dtd:22.11.2013.
Ex.R.5 - Particulars of Bid.
Ex.R.6 - Letter dated:21.01.2013.
Ex.R.7 - Letter dated:13.08.2011.
Ex.R.8 - Another letter dtd:13.03.2012.
Ex.R.9 - Another letter dtd:03.09.2013.
Ex.R.10 - Statement of loan a/c.
Dated:08.09.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
