DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 13th day of June, 2019
C.D Case No. 84 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Smt. Pravati Rani Mishra
W/o: Srikanta Mishra
Vill: Basuapada,
Po: Erada,
Ps: Bhadrak (R),
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Manager
M/S Panda Motors
Authorized Dealer- Mahindra Gujarat Tractor
At: Sahapur, Motel Chhak, Bhadrak
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
2. Mahindra Gujarat Tractor Ltd.
Regd. Office- Vishwamitri Railway, Vishwamitri Vadodarh
Gujarat, Pin- 390011
3. H.D.F.C Bank Ltd.
At: A/62/1, Unit- 8,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Odisha- 751012
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Sri Basanta Kumar Mohanty & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 1: Sri S. K. Nayak & Others, Adv
Counsel For the OP No. 2: Set Ex-Parte
Counsel For the OP No. 3: Sri D. Nayak & Others, Adv
Date of hearing: 11.07.2018
Date of order: 13.06.2019
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arises out of the complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is a lady farmer who intended to acquire a tractor for batter farming and accordingly contacted OP No. 1 to gather some knowledge about the better performing tractor who advised to purchase a Shaktiman Tractor of Model- 35 XLS manufactured by OP No. 2. Accordingly the husband of the complainant obtained a quotation bearing No- 205 dt. 09.07.2015 for a quoted price of Rs 7,42,000/- after adjustment of Rs 90,000/- as subsidy at dealer’s point. Thereafter complainant approached the OP No. 3 Bank to provide credit support for acquisition of 35 XLS Shaktimat Tractor and OP No. 3 also recommended the tractor selected by the complainant is best one. Being motivated by OP No. 1 & 3, the complainant agreed to purchase the said tractor on loan to be provided by OP No. 3. On compliance of the requirements demanded by OP No. 3 and after execution of all relevant documents, OP No. 3 placed a supply order to OP No. 1 along with the demand draft and on receipt of supply order and D.D, OP No. 1 delivered the tractor along with all accessories on dt. 16.07.2015 with due acknowledgement of complainant’s husband but OP No. 1 did not issue any sale memo and tax invoice to the complainant instantly. Instead of issuing sale memo OP No. 1 gave a piece of paper in his own handwriting calculating the total cost of tractor after adjustment of subsidy at dealers point. At the time of delivery, it is observed by the complainant from the meter that the said tractor has rendered service for more than 84 hours which created suspicion for the complainant. When the complainant asked the manager of OP No. 1, he simply answered in saying that the tractor has come on road from Baragada to Bhadrak and that is why the meter is showing 84 hours of service. After 4 days from date of purchase of tractor it was noticed by the driver of the tractor that the steering of the tractor is not functioning properly which was brought to the notice of OP No. 1 immediately who deputed a mechanic on the next day to house of the complainant for replacement of arm nut of the steering which was done by the mechanic in putting an old arm nut instead of new one which was not compatible and matching to the steering. However the complainant managed to put the tractor in service but after few days the same problem cropped up again. On intimation to OP No. 1 who advised to bring the tractor to his workshop and accordingly the complainant took and left the tractor at dealer’s point for necessary repairing. The said tractor remained with OP NO. 1 for a month or so and when the complainant demanded an early repairing of the tractor, OP No. 1 delivered the tractor saying that the problems/defects existing in the tractor have been eradicated. But on use it was found that the problems/defects as was earlier were still persisting and OP No. 1 has not repaired the vehicle during the period of one month. Since then the tractor in question has not been perfuming and the complainant has been sustaining huge loss for the intentional mistake of OP No. 1 which was also communicated in several times on being present at his showroom. When the complainant did not find any other way for redressal of his grievance, he invoked the jurisdiction of this Forum for filing dispute praying for redressal and justice.
OP No 1 & 3 objected the allegations of complainant and contested the case. OP No. 2, although received the notice issued by this Forum, did not prefer to appear before the Forum nor submitted any written version in response to the allegations of the complainant. Hence OP No. 2 was set ex-parte. In submitting written version OP No. 1 has raised question of maintainability of this case as the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of CP Act nor has mentioned the exact date of cause of action and also the complainant has not come to this Forum in clean hands. It is also objected by the said OP that the entire facts as mentioned in the complaint are false and well designed- fabricated story cherishing an ill intention to extract money from the answering OP. It is also stated by the said OP that at no point of time the complainant was denied to provide proper service for servicing and repairing of the tractor rather the answering OP has provided all technical supports to the complainant as and when necessary and demanded. As regards the allegation of the complainant about the unfair trade practice resorted by OP No. 1 is totally false as the complainant has not at all specified the instance(s) of unfair trade practice in the complaint and also not specified where the answering OP has failed to provide proper service which would amount to deficiency of service. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has not at all furnished any report of technical expert to prove his allegation with regards to various defects cropped up within a month or two from the date of purchase. It is also a fact that the complainant has alleged falsely about the fact that the OP No. 1 & 3 insisted upon/motivated him to purchase to purchase Shaktiman-S 35 model tractor which is the best tractor available in market at the relevant point of time. The truth remains that the complainant approached to OP No. 1 for a quotation expressing his intention to purchase a Shaktiman-S 35 model tractor which was provided to him without any discussion and interrogation and after sanction of loan by the financier and having obtained the supply order from the financier, this answering OP delivered the tractor which was selected by the complainant after proper scrutiny and verification and the complainant received the tractor in good condition as acknowledged by her husband on the delivery chalan. Under the above premises it is crystal that the answering OP has not caused any deficiency of service nor resorted to any unfair trade practice for which the complaint may be dismissed due to lack of merit.
OP No. 3, the financing bank has raised the question of maintainability on different grounds such as the answering OP has not caused any deficiency of service nor resorted to any unfair trade practice. Furthermore the relation between the complainant and OP No. 3 is that of borrower and lender for which the complainant shall not be said as consumer within the meaning of CP Act. Other then above the answering OP has also raised that the entire theme of the complaint describes about the manufacturing defects of the tractor and inadequate service provided by OP No. 1 as a result of which, the said tractor could not put at work to generate income which is none of the mistake of the answering OP. It is nothing but the only fact is that the complainant approached the OP No. 3 for credit support to acquire a tractor. Accordingly he was advised to comply the requirements for processing of the loan proposal which was promptly complied by the complainant and finally this OP sanctioned and released the loan in favour of the complainant and issued Demand Draft in favour of the supplier (OP No. 1) selected by him. After supply of the tractor, no complaint was raised by the complainant with the answering OP till date of filing of this case about the tractor is suffering from manufacturing defects. Rather this OP could know about the matter after receiving notice from D.C.D.R.F Bhadrak. Finally it is submitted by the answering OP that the loan demand against the complainant is always determined basing on the terms and conditions stipulated in the loan agreement executed between the complainant and OP No. 3. Therefore it is submitted before the esteemed Forum that the present case may please be dismissed due to lack of merit with heavy cost.
Gone through the complaint filed by the complainant, written version submitted by the O.Ps, perused materials on record, heard the parties to this case in course of hearing and observed as discussed bellow.
1. The complainant has alleged against the OP No. 1 & 2 who had instigated upon him to purchase Shaktiman-S31 Model Tractor manufactured by Mahindra Gujrat Tractor Ltd. which was agreed by the complainant and accordingly he obtained quotation from the concerned dealer and submitted the same to the financing bank (OP No. 3) for providing necessary credit supports to acquire the tractor. On the contrary both the O.Ps have vehemently opposed the allegation of the complainant and refuted to have instigated upon the complainant for acquiring of the model. The allegation brought in the complaint is an well plotted story fabricated by the complainant either to avoid payment of the loan or to linger such payment at his sweet will. On perusal of materials on record it is found that the complainant has not adduced to any evidence to prove his allegation nor has mentioned anything about the evidence in his pleadings.
2. As regards advance of quantum of loan by the financier (OP No. 3) the complainant has stated to have availed a loan of Rs 2,80,000/- after payment of Rs 1,68,000/- as promoters contribution but OP No. 3 has shown in the books of accounts Rs 3,03,000/- as loan which is illegal and the differential amount Rs 23,000/- has been misappropriate by OP No. 3. On the other hand OP No. 3 has stated that it has actually advanced a sum of Rs 3,03,000/- which includes the processing fee, premium for credit protection and premium for insurance etc. total of which comes to Rs 23,000/-. As such the bank has not misappropriated the amount of Rs 23,000/- as alleged by the complainant. Further it is also alleged by the complainant that OP No. 1 has not issued any sale memo instantly as a token of proof that the tractor has been purchased from OP No. 1. But it is astonishing that the sale memo has been furnished before the R.T.O Bhadrak for registration of the tractor which proves that the allegation of this particular point is false. On perusal of records and the materials furnished by the parties to this case, it is evident from the account statement furnished by OP No. 3 that the bank is not found guilty and the amount of advanced shown in the account statement is correct. Hence the allegation of the complainant on this point is devoid of merit.
3. The complainant has alleged that at the time of delivery of the tractor the complainant found the vehicle has provided service or has been used for more than 84 hours as was reflecting in the meter which was brought to the notice of the supplier (OP No. 1). In compliance to such allegation OP No. 1 has objected in stating that the allegation is absolutely fake and fabricated and the OP has taken false plea to litigate the matter for no valid reason.
4. The complainant ahs alleged that OP No. 1, being the authorized service provider of OP No. 3, did not take care to get the vehicle/tractor repaired as and when the service was required by the complainant. The facts remains that after four to five days of delivery, the tractor gave rise to various defects which was brought to the notice of OP No. 1 but the said OP did not respond to the sincere request of the complainant and did not provide required service as a result of which the tractor in question could not put to work and failed to generate any income towards payment of the loan installments. On the other hand OP No. 1 condemned such allegation in stating that the complainant ahs availed all the free services from the service provider but nowhere and never has raised any allegation as mentioned in the complaint. This indicates that the complainant has filed false complaint against the O.Ps to extract money or undue gain from the O.Ps. Perused the material on record which disclose that the complainant has adduced any evidence to prove his allegations against OP No. 1 on the point of refusal to provide required service. On perusal of materials on record it is observed that the complainant has not furnished any job card to prove his allegations but on the other hand the OP No. 1 have proved to have provided required service to the complainant when the tractor was brought to it’s workshop. Hence the allegation on this particulars point against the O.Ps seems to be false.
In view of the above discussed points and available relevant materials on record, we finally hold that the present case does not bear any merit, hence liable to be dismissed. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest and in the circumstances without cost.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 13th June, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
