IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, KEONJHAR
C.D.Case No. 72 of 2008.
Tapas Kumar Jena aged about 25 years,
Son of Dharanidhar Jena, At/P.O.Badarampas,
P.S.Nandipada, District- Keonjhar
……. Complainant.
- Versus –
1. Sanjibani Motors,
At.opp.Fire Station, Charampa,
P.O.Charampa,P.S./District-Bhadrak.
2. Service Manager,
New Holland Tractors India Pvt.Ltd.,
Service department,
Industrial Plot No.3,
Corporate Center, Goutam Budh Nagar,
Greater Noida, Uttarpradesh – 201306.
3. Manager, AXIS Bank,
At.R.C.Behera Market Complex,
Salandi By-Pass, Bhadrak,
P.O./P.S./District- Bhadrak.
…… Opp. Parties.
For the Complainant …… Saroj Kumar Bhuyan.
For the Opp.Party No. 1 & 2 …… B.K.Behera,S.K.Paikray,
And P.K.Panda.
For the Opp.Party No.3 …… Self.
SMT.RASESWARI MOHANTY I/C PRESIDENT
SUBASH CH. SAHOO MEMBER.
DATE OF HEARING: 29.07.2009 DATE OF ORDER:23.09.2009
SMT.RASESWARI MOHANTY I/C.PRESIDENT:- The brief facts of the case are that the complainant to earn his livelihood has purchased one New Holland Tractor having Model of NX-3030-35 H.P. with three cylinders Engineer bearing its Registration No. OR-22B/7452 and OR-22B/7453, Engine No.C18186 and Chassis No. 743534 from the opp.Party No.1 being hypotheticated through opp.party No.3 on 20.12.2007. After one month from purchase of the Tractor, the complainant noticed some mechanical defaults such as consumption of heavy mobile oil and some defects in the Engine. So the complainant brought the fact to the notice of Opp. Party No.1 through letter as well as on personal meeting but the opposite party did not take any action within its stipulated warranty period. The complainant thereafter sent a letter through Registered Post which was not received by the opp.party No.1 and return back to the complainant on 25.6.2009 .It is alleged by the complainant the he was facing much problem since the vehicle could not ply on the road and opposite party No.3 noticed him to clear up the loan amount and therefore brought the complain before the Forum with a prayer to direct the Opp. party No.1 and 2 to remove the defects of the vehicle as per its costs. It is his further prayer that direction be made to the Opp.Party No.3 not to charge any interest over the loan amount till dispose of the case, a sum of Rs.30,000/- be awarded to him towards mental agony and harassment for the negligence of the opposite parties, cost of the proceeding and other relief’s.
In support of his contention, the complainant filed some documents such as Xerox copy of R.C. Book, Quotation of the Tractor and challan dt, 20.12.2007 bearing No.142, which is marked as exhibits Nos.1 to 3 respectively.
After due service of notices, opposite party Nos.1 and 2 entered their appearance through their engaged lawyer and Opp.party No.3 by appearing himself filed their respective versions. The opposite party No.3 filed the version challenging inter-alia that the petition is not maintainable under the Forum due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is also challenged by the opp.party No.3 that violating the non-payment of loan installment dues is illegal and against the principle of law and any such prayer for non-collection of installment dues is non-tenable in the eye of law. The opposite party No.3 filed one document such as letter to the Opp.Party No.1 to release the loan amount which is marked as Exhibit-“A”.
The opp.party No.1 on the hand , challenged the complaint petition filed by the complainant that the petition it self is not maintainable since it lacks territorial jurisdiction as much as the complainant made all transaction before Opposite party No.1 at his office situate at Charampa in the district of Bhadrak. So the complainant petition if any should have been filed within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Forum at Bhadrak, the complainant is not coming under a consumer since he took the Tractor for his business purpose. With regards to the deficiency of service, no deficiency of service have ever made by the Opposite party No.1 as because the complainant himself is responsible for the loss of Tractor if any. He is unnecessary throwing mud to others by concealing his mistake. As to his, the Tractor in question was given delivery to the complainant by the Opp.party by issuing one chalan for trial as the complainant wanted to know the function of the vehicle and subsequently after trial the complainant took the vehicle on 20.12.2007 and payment was made through AXIS bank as the vehicle was hypothecated through opp.party No.3. The complainant after taking the Tractor used the vehicle and made the first servicing on 18.1.2008 in the Workshop of the opp.party No.1 vide Job Card No.21/08 in fifty three hours, where no complaint has made by the complainant. The complainant thereafter performed the 2nd servicing after 320 hours on 12.03.2008 vide Job No.58/08 and at that time also he did not make any complain with regards to the defects, if any, rather signed on the customer Job cards with satisfaction. Similarly the 3rd servicing was also made by the complainant on 21.05.2008 after six hundred hours in the workshop of the opp.party No.1 vide Job card No.85/08 and the complainant at no point of time made any complain stating to the defects in the vehicle but put his signature in the job card with full satisfaction. No registered letter had ever received or returned by him which was sent through the petitioner. His knowledge about the vehicular defect of the complainant was made him only after the opp. party No.3 intimated the facts about the defects of the tractor taken by the complainant on 30.06.08.
After getting information, the opposite Party No.1 contacted the complainant and come to knew on 07.072008 that some defects apparent by the complainant on the tractor. The opp.party No.1 thereafter in order to check the defects sent on of his technician who after noticing the defects requested the complainant to bring the vehicle to the workshop of Opp.party No.1 at Charampa as it was not the possible to comply the defects outside the workshop but unfortunately the complainant did not take the vehicle to the workshop for necessary repair and without taking any steps for getting over the defect filed this case with a false pretext in order to harass the opposite Party. The opposite party No.1 in his version by denying all the allegation of the complainant suggested the complainant to the effect that he is still ready to provide all his Endeavour to repair the alleged defect vehicle into his workshop at Charampa, Bhadrak and the expenditure of spare parts will be born by the Tractor has expired much prior to filling the complaint petition.
The Opp.Party No.1 filed certain documents such as Xerox Copy of Job Cards No.21/08, dt.18.1.2008, Job card No.58/08,dtd.12.03.2008 and Job Card No.85/08, dt.21.05.2008 respectively which are marked as Exhibits “B”,:C” and “D” respectively.
The opposite Party No.2 in his version support all the facts stated above made by the opposite party No.1.
The admitted facts are that the complainant had took the Tractor in question from the authorized dealer of Opp.Party No.1 NEW HOLLAND TRACTOR and opposite party No.2 is the original Company, the vehicle is being financed by the opp.party No.3.
The point for consideration is whether the opposite parties made any deficiency by not repairing the tractor of the complainant in time for which sustained loss and undergone mental agony and harassment.
On perusal of the record, it is found that the complainant had filed the documents vide Ext.1 to 3, Xerox copy of R.C.Book, Quotation of Tractor and Challan dtd.20.12.2007 bearing No.142 to which the opposite parties do not dispute. Although he alleged that during warranty period he noticed some defects of the Tractor and he, intimated the facts to the opp.party No.1 personally and through registration letter which was returned being un-served to him on 25.06.2008 but unfortunately the complainant failed to produce any such document with regards to warranty, or to letter which remain unserved to the Opp. party No.1 . The opposite party No.1 straight way denied that the complainant had not intimated the vehicular defects of the Tractor by meeting personally. Moreover the mechanical defects for which the complainant filed the case against the opposite Parties was not specific nor he adduce any evidence to that defect.
On the other hand the consistent pleas of the opp. party No.1 and 2 are that the complainant took the delivery of the Tractor from the Opposite party No.1 on 20.12.2007 in a fit condition after taking trial, being financed by the opp.party No.3. The complainant after taking the Tractor used the vehicle and made 1st servicing on 18.1.2008 in the workshop of the opp.party No.1 vide job Card No 21/08(Ext,”B”) after 53 hours but no such complaint with regards to the defect of the tractor was made by him. The complainant thereafter performed the 2nd servicing after 320 hours on 12.03.2008 vide Job Card No.58/08 (Ext.”C”) and at that time also he did not make any complaint with regards to defect of Tractor rather he signed on the Job Card with satisfaction. On 21.05.2008, the complainant again made 3rd servicing after 600 hours in the workshop of the Opp. Party No.3 vide Job Card No.85/08 (Ext.”D”) and the complainant at that time also made no such complain stating the defects in the vehicle and received the vehicle with satisfaction which could be inferred from Ext.”D”. So on perusal of Exhibit “B”, “C” and “D”, it is found that the complainant made 3 Nos. of servicing in the Workshop of the Opposite Party No.1 but at no point of time ventilated his grievance with regards to the defect of the Tractor rather he put his signature in the Job Card with satisfaction in the column of Customer’s signature.
If the Opp.Party No.1 and 2 will not be intimated about the defect of the vehicle, how could it be possible on their part to solve the same. Apart from that, as to complainant personally met Opposite Party No.1 and intimated the fact of the defects relating to the Tractor by registered lost to Opposite Party No.1 but he did not received the letter and ultimately it was back to the sender. But the Opposite Party No.1 straight way denied that no such person ever met taking to the above grievance and no registered letter sent to him about the same to which he refused to receive. Had it been a fact that the Registered Letter was returned by the Opposite Party No.1, the complainant could have filed the same but no such document has been filed by the complainant. So from this, it could come to light that the Opposite Patty No.1 and 2 had not intimated about the defects of the Tractor in time as has been alleged by him. It is quite natural that if some one will not be intimated about responsibility, how it is possible on his part to carry out the job. We found the same principle is applicable to the present case. The opposite party No.1 has established his ignorance about the alleged defect of the complainant in the Tractor by placing the documents like Ext. “B” to “D”. If Opp. Party No.1 is not responsible, responsibility of opposite party No.2 does not arise. Similarly the role of Opposite Party No.3 for making any deficiency towards the complainant in our consistent opinion is nothing since he only sanctioned the loan amount. In the present case, there is no reason on the part of opposite Party No.3 for not collecting the installments from the complainant. Moreover as there is no illegality made by the Opposite Parties and no deficiency of service has been proved by the complainant, he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. However, the complainant is at liberty to show his Tractor in the Workshop of opposite party No.1 since Opposite Party No.1 very clearly stated in his show cause and at the time of hearing that he is ready to repair any defect of the Tractor, if the complainant choose to bring the vehicle into his Workshop situated at Charampa provided the cost of spare parts will be borne by the complainant.
In view of our discussion made above, we find that the complainant has not proved his case against the Opposite Parties for any deficiency and therefore he is not entitled to get any relief. Hence it is ordered:-
ORDER
The complainant petition filed by the complainant is dismissed on contest against the Opposite Parties without cost.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 23 day of September, 2009 under my hand and seal of this Forum.
Copies of this Order are made available to the parties as per rules.
Dictated and I agree I agree
Corrected by me,
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER I/C PRESIDENT.
Tags: Sanjibani Motors