SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) alleging deficiency in service against the Ops claiming compensation.   

2.         The case of the complainant, in short, is that on 17.1.2011 he purchased one John Deer tractor along with trailer from OP No.1 on the basis of loan hypothecated by OP No.3 through the OP No.4 on payment of Rs.6,17,489/- to the OP No.1 & 2. It was subsequently registered vide No.OR-01S-7289 and obtained fitness from the concerned authorities. It is stated that after 10-15 days from the date of purchase, it was found that the engine has manufacturing defect as well as the hydraulic system was not in operational condition and further the engine of the vehicle became hot, starting the of engine was suddenly stopped and several valuable parts were damaged due to excess heat. On complain, the OP No.1 sent mechanic to the premises of the complainant for service, but no defects were removed. It is further stated that the complainant had availed the service of private mechanic to remove the defect in the vehicle, but the defect could not be removed in the engine and hydraulic system trailer, for which he could not ply the tractor since 15.5.2011 and sustained financial loss nor he did able to repay the instalment due in time. Thereafter, the complainant served legal notice against the OP No.1 for removal of the defects, but the OP No.1 remained silent in the matter. In the meantime, OP No.3 & 4 are demanding their instalments. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file the case. To substantiate his case, the complainant has relied on the following documents.

1. Photocopies of Quotation of the alleged tractor
2. Photocopies Challans issued by OP No.1,
3. Photocopy of Fitness certificate,
4. Photocopy of Registration certificate particulars in respect of the tractor,
5. Photocopy of Insurance certificate,
6. Photocopy of legal notice issued against OP No.1,
7. Photocopy of Demand draft of Rs.4,75,577/- issued by OP No.2 in favour of OP No.4,
8. Photocopy of Subsidy quotation in respect of hydraulic,
9. Photocopy of Subsidy quotation in respect of the tractor,
10. Photocopy of Warranty card, & Tractor identification card

3.         OP No.1 appeared and filed written version admitting the fact that the complainant had purchased the alleged tractor and trailer from their firm and used the same for his business. Once the tractor has some mechanical defects and on the complaint lodged by him, this OP sent mechanic to his house to solve the problem and further as and when the complainant has complained, this OP solved the problem of the complainant. This OP has not neglected in his service which ought to have been rendered towards the complainant. In support of his case, no document is relied on.

4.         OP No. 2 & 3 appeared and filed their joint written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant had availed a loan for purchase of tractor of Rs.4,75,577/- to OP No.4 which is a branch of OP No.3 and obtained quotation from OP No.3. Out of the above cost, there was Govt. subsidy of Rs.90,000/- at that time. Out of the quotation amount of Rs.4,75,577/-, an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned against the complainant and the remaining margin money of Rs.75,000/- was to be paid by the complainant. The OP No.3 through its OP No.4-Branch, issued demand draft for Rs.4,75,577/-. Further, the complainant has alleged that the tractor along with hydraulic system of the trailer financed by OP No.4 and supplied by OP No.2 were found defective which was beyond their knowledge nor the complainant has brought the matter to their notice at any point of time. As per the terms and conditions, the complainant has to repay the loan amount within 9 years in 108 monthly instalments which was acknowledged by the complainant and his guarantor, but the complainant has failed to repay his outstanding loan amount and became defaulter. The complainant has filed this case with a view to escape from paying the loan dues to this Ops. No document what-so-ever is relied on.

5.         OP No.4 appeared and filed his written version stating that this OP is a State Government undertaking organization and acting as a subsidy administrating agency of the Government in respect of sale of tractor and trolley. The customers who will purchase the tractor and trolley through OP No.4 will be entitled to get subsidy of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.25,000/- for tractor and trolley respectively and the complainant had availed the respective subsidy against the permit issued by Agriculture Department. This OP has no role to play in the matter of sales and service of the tractor. That apart, the complainant has stated that he had availed the service of private mechanic for repairing of his alleged tractor within the warranty period, so, he is not entitled to the relief in this case. No documentary evidence is produced.

6.         OP No.5 appeared and filed his written version stating, inter alia, that the complainant had purchased his tractor on 7.3.2011 and he has first reported his tractor for general services on 6.1.2012 i.e. for the 4^th servicing after 10 months of purchase and at that time the complainant has already used the vehicle up to 870 hours as mentioned in the job card. The complainant has skipped first servicing at 100 hours, second servicing at 350 hours and third servicing at 600 hours consecutively which shows itself a case of lack of maintenance. The overheating, as complained by the complainant at the time of 4^th servicing, was immediately taken care by the dealership and radiator cap and engine head gasket was changed under warranty. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has used the tractor continuously after purchase. After 4^th servicing, the complainant again reported for servicing on 1.3.2012 at 1080 hours and on 5.6.2012 at 1360 hours and all the said servicing dates are documented in job card and service coupon with signature of the complainant. Further, on 21.8.2014, when the company personnel visited the complainant during routine servicing van campaign activity, the complainant had already used his vehicle for 3122 hours which clearly shows that the complainant has regularly used the tractor after purchase for his day to day field and haulage works and falsely blaming the dealer for breakdown of engine and hydraulic system. Again, on 21.8.2014, during dealership van campaign visit to customer house, a simple problem was found in tractor’s pressure relief valve and hydraulic pump and that issue arose in customer’s tractor due to the fact that the complainant has not changed hydraulic oil after so many reminders from dealership for changing the same. The said problem was also solved within a short time and a satisfaction note was also given by him in which he has mentioned that he was satisfied with the performance of the machine of his tractor. Therefore, the complainant was used the tractor @ 1040.66 hours per year. Hence, it is prayed that the complainant may be dismissed with cost. OP No.5 has relied on a bunch of documents.    

7.         In view of the above averments of parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-

(i)         Whether the complainant has cause of action to file this case?

(ii)         Whether this consumer case is maintainable?

(iii)        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?

(iv)        What other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?

F  I  N  D  I  N  G  S

8.         In the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the pleadings of both the parties, before delve into the merits of the case, first of all, it is wise to discuss about the documents filed by the parties.

            The complainant has relied on bunch of documents viz. photocopies of Quotation of the alleged tractor, Challans issued by OP No.1, Fitness certificate, Registration certificate particulars in respect of the tractor, Insurance certificate, Copy of legal notice issued against OP No.1, Demand draft of Rs.4,75,577/- issued by OP No.2 in favour of OP No.4, Subsidy quotation in respect of hydraulic, Subsidy quotation in respect of the tractor, Warranty card, & Tractor identification card.

            OP No.5 has relied on a bunch of documents viz. photocopies of Job cards dated 1.3.2012, 5.6.2012 & 21.8.2012 and Satisfaction Note by the complainant dated 21.8.2014.   

 9.        The complainant has claimed that after 10-15 days from the date of purchase, his tractor got manufacturing defect in respect of the Engine so also Hydraulic system and the Engine stopped due to overheat. In this regard, the complainant has not stated anything that within the said 10-15 days how much hours his tractor performed to his satisfaction. The complainant has not produced the Job cards to prove that his vehicle had attended 1^st free servicing within 1 month or at 100 hours, 2^nd free servicing within 4 months or at 350 hours, 3^rd servicing within 7 months or at 600 hours or 4^th servicing within 10 months or at 850 hours. On the other hand, OP No.5 submitted Job card dated 1.3.2012 which shows that the vehicle of the complainant had attended for 5^th free servicing and on the date, the vehicle had already performed at 1080 hours. From the Job card dated 5.6.2012, it is seen that it was 6^th free serving that has been attended by the vehicle of the complainant and on the date, the vehicle had performed at 1360 hours. From the Job card dated 21.8.2012, it is found that the tractor had already performed at 3122 hours and on the same day the hydraulic pump of the tractor was changed free of cost on the complaint of the complainant. On the same date i.e. on 21.8.2012, the complainant had signed on the satisfaction note wherein it has been mentioned that the problem in respect of his tractor got resolved and there was no open complain in his tractor and so, he was satisfied with the repaired (replace the hydraulic pump & pressure relief valve) work carried out and his tractor was then good and running condition. If that be so, the claim of the complainant that his tractor got manufacturing defect is said to have been shattered as because he has not attended his vehicle to avail 1^st free servicing to 4^th free servicing and raised his allegation against the OP No.1 & 5 without any basis and foundation. Moreover, the complainant has admitted in his complaint that he had availed the service of private mechanic for repairing of his alleged tractor within the warranty period. In the above circumstances, the complainant is not entitled to any relief in this case.

10.        Besides the above, on perusal of the pleadings of the parties and the documents relied upon by them, it is found that the complainant had taken loan from OP No.2 & 3-Bank through OP No.4 and hire purchased one tractor and trolley from OP No.1, who is dealing with the product of OP No.5. It is stated by the OP No.2 & 3-Bank that the complainant has not repaid the outstanding loan amount to them as agreed upon by him to be repaid the loan amount within 9 years in 108 monthly consecutive instalments which was acknowledged by him and his guarantor, but he failed to repay his outstanding loan amount and became defaulter. Further, the complainant has filed this case with a view to escape from paying the loan dues. From the documents relied on by the complainant, it is crystal clear that he had availed financial assistance from the OP No.2 & 3-Bank through OP No.4 and purchased the tractor and trolley. Therefore, it can safely be said that the complainant is a borrower and the OP No.2, 3 & 4 are financier. That apart, the complainant has not stated a single word about the service that has not been rendered by the financier i.e. OP No.2, 3 & 4.  

11.        In the above facts and circumstances of the case, Hon’ble National CDR Commission, New Delhi have been pleased to observe in a case reported in 2015(4) CPR-148 (N.C) (Sunny & Others -vs.- Rajesh Tripathy) that financing and advancement of loan does not fall within purview of facility in connection with banking, transport, etc. as mentioned in Section 2(o) of C.P Act, 1986 and in such circumstances, complainant does not fall within purview of consumer. Further, the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi in  III (2006) CPJ-247 (N.C) in the case of Ram Deshlahara -vs.- Magma Leasing Ltd. have been pleased to observe that under a hire purchase transaction, the financer does not render any service within the meaning of C.P Act and the petitioner is thus, not a consumer. Moreover, Ops-Bank have the right to recover their dues and any demand for payment of dues cannot be treated as threatening. Further, exercising legitimate right to recover the dues by a financer cannot be treated as deficiency of service or unfair trade practice. Under the hire purchase agreement, it is the financer, who is the owner of the product business unit and the person, who takes the loan retain the product unit only as a Bailee/ trustee. Therefore, taking possession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment has always been upheld to be a legal right of the financer. In the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the observations of the Hon’ble National C.D.R Commission, New Delhi, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, the present case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file the case. Consequently, the case of the complainant deserves no consideration and liable to be dismissed.

             Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

             The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. The interim order dated 02.09.2013 passed in this case be treated as infructuous. No costs.  

             Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 9^th day of December, 2024 under the signature & seal of the Commission.