West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/199/2012

Sri Narayan Prasad Singha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Greaves Co. Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

06 Sep 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.199/2012                                                                                         

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

           Order No.11.                                                                                      Dated :-06/09/2013

Sri Narayan Prasad Singha S/o-Late Ram Kinkar Singha, Vill-Keshkapur, P.O.-Jhakra, P.S.-Chandrakona, Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. The  Manager, Greaves Co. Pvt. Ltd., Akash Tower, 5^th floor, 781-Anandapur, Kolkata-700107
2. Proprietor, Gouri Krishi Bhandar at Khatra (Rasakini Tala), P.O. & P.S.-Khatra, Dist-Bankura
3. Ghatal Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural development Bank Ltd., at P.O. & P.S.-Khirpai, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………Ops.

       The specific case of the complainant is that Sri Narayan Prasad Singha purchased one Greaves Mini Compine Harvestor from Op no.1 greaves Company Pvt. Ltd. by payment of a sum of Rs.2,90,160.00/- (Two lakhs ninety thousand one hundred sixty) only arranged by Op no.3 Ghatal Co-Operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Khirpai by the strength of quotation dated 06/03/2012 granted by Op no.2 Gouri Krishi Bhandar in favour of the said Op no.3.  The machine was delivered through Op no.2 in favour of the complainant on 13/04/2012 against Road Challan dated 16/04/2012.  It is alleged by the complainant that despite sincere effort the machine could not be installed due to non- availability of necessary parts.  The entire matter was reported to the Op nos.1&2 with a request for installation of the said machine.  Ultimately, Op nos.1 & 2 did not render any co-operation to the complainant.  Finding no alternative complainant served notice upon them demanding supply of a new machine for necessary replacement.  Even then, no action was taken by them. In this connection the complainant claims that the Op no.3 Bank is also liable

Contd……………….P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

for such deficiency in service.  Upon the case, the complainant prays for passing necessary direction to the Op nos.1&2 for supply of a Greaves Mini Combine Harvestu Machine with necessary accessories or alternatively to refund the entire consideration money.

  Op No.3 contested the case by filing W/O stating that there is no case of deficiency in service as the machine was purchased by the complainant directly from the Op no.1 by taking loan on execution  of Mortgage Bond being its No.1404/CH/2011-12 dt. 6^th March 2012.  In addition it is claimed by the Op no.3 that the machine was manufactured by Op no.1 and the same was delivered through Op no.2.  The complainant in fact is trying to avoid the repayment of the loan to the Op no.2.  Thus, the proceeding should be dropped against Op no.3 bank

Op nos. 1 & 2 also contested the case by filing W/O separately challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction of this Forum on the ground that the transaction was made within the District Bankura.  Apart from that, Op nos.1 &2 submitted in their W/O that the machine in question was duly tested and supplied to the complainant and an if there is no defect in the matter of functioning of the said machine there is definitely duty of the Op Nos.1&2 for taking necessary steps for repairing or replacement whatever preparation is necessary in favour of the demand of the complainant but the matter should be held within the District Bankura where the transaction was held between the complainant and the Op Nos.1&2 having business there in the said territorial jurisdiction.  Stating the case, Op Nos.1 & 2 very categorically demanded that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

     Having considered the entire case of the parties and material documents on record including respective submission, it appears that the machine was purchased by the complainant on payment of consideration money against receipt dated 13/04/2012 and the same was supplied under Road Challan dated 16/04/2012 admittedly by virtue of loan sanctioned by the Op no.3 against  quotation dated 6/03/2012 in favour of complainant.

      Now question is that if there accrued any sort of defect or cause of non servicing of the machine in question who is liable for making good to the complainant.  From the case of the parties it is very explicitly found that the machine in question was purchased from the Op nos.1&2 who run their business in Khatra and Bankura respectively which are not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.  Secondly, question of liability to be dealt with by the appropriate jurisdiction by virtue of which the complainant may get relief.  Thirdly, Op no.3 has a very limited role for getting repayment the complainant against the loan sanctioned by the bank in favour of the complainant.  Considering the whole aspect of the case on the points noted, it should be held that the Op. no.3-Bank in no way is held liable towards the claim of the complainant in this very case of  

  Contd……………….P/3

 

                                                                                                        - ( 3 ) -

transaction on purchase of the machine between the complainant and Op. nos. 1 & 2. Thus this case shall not lie as against Op. no.3 Bank.

In view of the discussion made here in above it is clear case of the complainant as placed before us that the cause of action stands beyond the territorial Jurisdiction of this Forum which strikes the question of want of jurisdiction and thus the case should be dismissed with giving liberty to the complainant to place the case before the appropriate Forum having proper jurisdiction to try the case.                    

            Hence, it is,

                                  Ordered,

                                                    that the case be and the same is dismissed on contest without cost.

      The complainant is hereby given liberty to present the case before the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction to try the case.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              Sd/-                                 Sd/-                       Sd/-                                            Sd/-

         President                          Member                Member                                     President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.