Orissa

Jharsuguda

CC/12/2015

Umashankar Naik S/O-Abhimanyu Naik - Complainant(s)

Versus

TheKalinga Industry (Tractor Division) - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.Mishra

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 12 OF 2015

 

Uma Shankar Naik (30 Yrs.),

S/O- Abhimanyu Naik,

RO: Baijpali, 

PO: Bagdehi, PS: Laikera,

Dist: Jharsuguda,Odisha………………………………..………………Complainant.

                                                 

Versus

 

1. Kalinga Industries (Tractor Division),

By-Pass Road, Sarbahal, Jharsuguda,

Through its Proprietor Himanshu Sekher Mishra,

Regd. Office: Industrial Estate,

Baraipali,Sambalpur, Odisha-768150,

At/PO: Sarbahal, PS: Jharsuguda, Dist: Jharsuguda.

 

2. Adity Mishra ( 32 Yrs.), Sales Manager,

S/O: Not Known,

Kalinga Industries ( Tractor Division) Jharsuguda,

At: By-Pass Road, PO: Sarbahal, PS: Jharsuguda,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

 

3. Basu deb Bhoi, ( 26 Yrs.),

S/O: Not Known, Staff

 Kalinga Industries ( Tractor Division) Jharsuguda,

At: By-Pass Road, PO: Sarbahal, PS: Jharsuguda,

Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha.

 

4. Magma Fincorp Finance Limited through its Manager,

At: 1^st Floor, Samleswari market Complex,

PO: Budharaja, PS: Sambalpur,

Dist; Sambalpur, Odisha. ………………...………………………..Opp. Parties.

 

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                                  Shri N.K.Mishra, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.1 to 3                    Shri C.R.Panda, Adv. Associates.

For the Opp. Party No.4                           Shri A.K.Sahoo, Adv. & Associates.

 

Date of Order: 22.09.2015

Present

                                                                                    1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                                                    2. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.

 

                                                                                                                                  

 

Shri S.L. Behera, President:-  The brief facts of the complaint case is that, the complainant  belongs to ST Community, in order to get 50% subsidy purchased a Tractor with Trolley from Opposite Party No.1 (O.P.) being financed by O.P.No.4.  The main allegation of the complainant against O.P.No.1 is that, after receipt of price of the vehicle O.P.No.1 in connivance with O.P.No.2 and 3, did not supply Sale Certificate and other vehicular documents after delivery of the said tractor with trolley.  It is also alleged that due to non-supply of those vehicular documents by O.P.No.1 the complainant could not get the vehicle registered in to his name and the vehicle is still laying idle at his residence.  Hence this complaint praying for a direction to the O.P.No.1 to 3 to refund Rs.4,02,000/- only with interest and for payment of compensation. 

2.         On being noticed, the O.P. No.1 to 3 appeared through their learned advocate Sri C.R.Panda and O.P.No.4 through his advocate Sri A.K. Sahoo and filed their written versions respectively. The O.P.No.4 is the Financing Agency who had financed under hire purchase basis against whom there is no allegation.  The O.P.No.1 to 3 in their joint written version denied the entire allegation made in the complaint.  It is stated by the O.P.No.1 that, the allegation of the complainant regarding non-supply of the sale certificate and other vehicular documents is not true as the sale certificate in form No.21 initial certificate of road worthiness has been delivered to the complainant after the delivery of the vehicle.  Accordingly, denying any deficient of service in their part sought for dismissal of the complaint.

3.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the case record. Before going to merit of the case we have to decide first the main allegation of the complainant.  Whether the O.P.No.1 to 3 had delivered the Sale Certificate and other documents to the complainant or not?  And whether the complainant had received those documents or not ?   The O.P.No.1 has produce the Xerox Copies of sale certificate issued in the name of the complainant in respect of the vehicle including initial certificate of road worthiness which form part of the record wherein complainant himself has put his signature acknowledging those documents.  Hence, the allegation made against the O.P.No.1 to 3 are found to be false.  At present, as those documents have already been delivered to the complainant at the time or after delivery of the vehicle which were acknowledge after signing over those documents. Hence we do not found any merit in the complaint petition and liable to be dismiss.

4.         In view of above discussion, we dismiss the complaint petition with no order as to cost.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 22^nd  day of September’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.

                                        I Agree.                                                                                               

                                          

                               A.Nanda, Member (W)                      S. L. Behera President                         

                          Dictated and corrected by me

 

                              S. L. Behera President.