District Consumer Disputes Redressal COMMISSION, MayurbhanJ,BARIPADA.
C.C. Case No.23 OF 2023.
Sri Basanta Kumar Dwari, aged about 42 years,
S/o. Guhiram Dwari,
Vill: Kanjia.
P.O: Sansarasposi,
P.S.- Chandua,
District- Mayurbhanj. ……. Complainant.
=Versus-=
1. The Manager,
Ambica Enterprises New Holland Tractor Show Room,
Darogadahi W.N. 15,
PO/PS: Baripada Town,
Dist: Mayurbhanj
2. The MAGMA Finance Corporation Ltd,
Head Office, Development House 24,
Park Street,
Kolkatta-700016
3. Sugen Nayak,
S/o Rameswar Nayak,
Vill: Kanjia,
P.O: Sansarasposi,
P.S.- Chandua,
District- Mayurbhanj. ……… Opp. Parties.
For the Complainant:- : Sri A.K. Bhanj Deo & Associates, Advocates.
For the O.P. No.1 : Sri A.K. Mohanty &Associates, Advocates
For the O.P. No.2 : Sri P.K. Mishra &Associates, Advocates
For the O.P. No. 3 : S. Soren & Associates, Advocates
Present :-
President, I/c- Sri Biranchi Narayan Patra.
Member - Sri Jiban Krushna Behera.
Date of filing of Case:- 3.5.3023……………………Date of Order :-5.12.2024
Consumer Dispute Case filed under Section 35 of C.P Act 2019.
JUDGEMENT
Jiban Krushna Behera, Member
2. The brief facts, as per complaint petition, are that the complainant has purchased a New Holland Tractor Model No. 3230, 42 HP for total amount of Rs.8,00,000/- from Ambica Enterprises New Holland Tractor Show Room OP No.1 on dt.26.6.2018 with financial assistance from The MAGMA Finance Corporation Ltd OP No.2. as per the complainant the OP No.1 assured him for subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- from Government and registration certificate from R.T.O. Mayurbhanj accordingly the complainant paid Rs.2,40,000/- to OP No.1 as down payment. The tractor was previously sold to Sugen Nayan, OP No.3 on dt.22.3.2018 and by receiving Rs.30,000/-. As OP No.3 failed to pay OP No.1 Rs.2,40,000/- within a period of four months from the date of purchase OP No.1 recovered the said tractor and trolley and without disclosing the said sale to complainant about the prior sale sold it to him. The complainant has handed over the said tractor to OP NO.1 on dt.20.10 2022 to regularize all relevant papers but the OP No.1 returned the tractor on dt.12.4.2022 to the complainant without regularizing required documents. Due to non-registration of the said tractor the complainant was unable to ply it on road but paid the loan EMIs to OP No.2 regularly.
Though the complainant requested OP No.1 for registration of tractor and trolley OP No 1 did not cooperate with him so the complainant sent a pleaders notice. OP No.1 in the reply to pleaders notice admitted the fact and claimed Rs.1,37,240/- as dues and did not hand over R.C. Book, Fitness and other documents. For which the complainant sustained irreparable loss. Hence the case. The cause of action arose on dt.26.6.2018.
2. Under the above complain the case was admitted and notice issued to Ops. The Ops appeared and filed their written version in detail. In their written version the Op 1 denied all allegations against him and submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation. OP No.1 further submitted that the cause of action of the case arose on dt. 26.6.2018 and the complaint filed on dt.25.4.2023 after a period of 4 years and 10 months. It is further submitted that the complainant has not taken any step for registration of his vehicle within a reasonable time rather this OP made several requests since 2018 and when no response received served a legal notice on dt.24.9.2019 but the complainant did not respond and plied vehicle without any valid papers and prayed to dismiss the case with heavy cost.
The Ops relied on documents :
- Photocopy of legal notice issued on 24.6.2019
- Photocopy of postal receipt ,
OP No. 2 filed a memo stating that the complainant has not made any claim against him. The loan against the complainant has been closed and the complainant himself filed NOC and requested to drop the case against him.
OP No. 3 in his written submission admitted that he has paid R. 30,000/- to OP No.1 and took delivery of the alleged tractor on dt.22.2.2018 but failed to deposit down payment of Rs.2,40,000/- within 4 months of said purchase OP No.1 took the tractor from him and sold to the complainant. It is further submitted that he knew the complaint has cleared the loan amount and the OP No.1 has not registered the said tractor. The OP No.3 has submitted photocopy of delivery challan dt.22.2.2018.
3. Having regard to the above pleadings of the parties, the following points need to be
determined by this Commission.
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps. within the definition of Sec.
2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
(2) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?
(2) Whether the Ops have made any deficiency of service?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed by him?
F I N D I N G S.
5. Admittedly, in this proceeding, the contesting parties filed documents in support of their case. It is not in dispute that the complainant has purchased the said tractor from OP No.1. all the Ops have admitted this fact in their respective versions. So the complaint is a consumer.
7. So, far as the claim of the complaint is that the cause of action in this case arose on dt. 26.6.2018 on this date the complainant has received invoice and delivery of the said tractor and trolley. From the loan statement it reveals that documentation for loan was made on dt.30.6.2018 and agreement was filed on 13.7.2018. If there was any dissension among the parties then how the complainant received the tractor and obtained loan after the date of cause of action the complainant has not substantiated this. The complainant has sent a legal notice to OP No. 1 on.10.3.2023 and received reply of the said notice dt. 27.3.2023. the pleadings in the complaint petition states that through this reply OP No.1 is claiming Rs.1,37,240/- without any basis. This commission feels that the cause of action arose on the date when the complainant received the reply of his pleaders notice on dt.27.3.2023.
8. So, far as the claim of the complaint is that the OP No.1 has made deficiency of service by not registering the tractor and trolley with competent authority and reselling of the tractor is reveals from the documents that the complainant and the previous buyer OP No.3 both belongs to same village. The said tractor was with OP No.3 for 4 months but the complainant was not aware about it. But neither the complainant nor OP No.3 submitted any invoice regarding sale of the tractor to OP No.3, in our view mere delivery challan cannot be invoice and OP No.3 has not purchased the said tractor. The 2nd point is registration of tractor and trolley with R.T.A. by OP No.1 it is responsibility of the owner to take steps for registration only dealer can not be hold sole responsible for it. The pleaders notice of OP No.1 dt. 24.9.2019 clearly shows that the complaint has not responded to the request of the OP No.1 for registration of the said tractor. In our considered opinion the OP No.1 has not made any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. So the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for. Hence it is ordered.
O R D E R.
The Complaint Case, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed on contest, but in the facts and circumstances, there is no order as to the cost.
Pronounced the order in the open Commission on this 5th day of December 2024 under seal of the Commission.
I agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
Member President, I/c.
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA. DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA.
Computerized on my dictation and corrected by me.
Sd/-
Member
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA.
Memo : 320/ Dt06./ 12/ 2024.
Supply free copy to all the parties concerned for information and necessary action.
Sd/-
President, I/c.
DCDRC, MBJ, BARIPADA
