Shri B. Mukhopadhyay, President.   

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            In the present complaint complainant has alleged that he purchased one Shaktiman Rotary Tiller, Model SRT-3, Sl. No.10C-1262 through West Bengal State Seed Corporation Ltd. on 14-06-2010 for the purpose of earning and also for using the same in his land and for his livelihood and OP1 is the dealer of the said rotavator.

            Before purchase OP made demonstration and also supplied some leaflets and brochure showing that said rotavator works in all classes of earth and for tilling and it was also demonstrated by the OPs1 and 2 that the said rotary tiller will serve the purpose of agricultural work because the plate of the said rotary tiller is specially designed for lebelling the earth or land and for cultivating.

            But after using the said rotary tiller it was found that the said rotary tiller could not work properly and the plate of the rotavator stuck with the earth and sometimes the said plate and wheels were found moving falsely and when it would not be possible for the complainant to remove the rotavator from the wet field or mud field.  At the same time the consumption of the fuel was found increased day by day and for which complainant became frustrated and reported the matter to the OPs1 and 2 and both OPs 1 and 2 in the month of March, 2011 sent one technician Mr. Ashif in the threshing house of the complainant and used the said rotavaror by fixing it with 23.5 H.P. tractor of his relative but even then it was found that rotavaror was always stucked with the mud and said technician informed the complainant to increase the H.P. of the tractor but admitted that rotavator was not functioning or working in the mud land or wet land.

            Thereafter complainant sent legal notice to the OPs on 24-05-2011 for removing the defect of the rotavator and they received the same on 16-05-2012 but they did not take any step for removal of the defect of the rotavator and, in fact, by purchasing some article from OP complainant suffered huge loss for non-functioning of the rotavator though as per advertisement and demonstration as made by the OPs 1 and 2 it was otherwise and in the circumstances, complainant alleged that OP must have to return purchase amount with interest or to take the said rotavator back by replacing new rotavator Model No. SRT/M-3 and compensation for adopting unfair trade practice by the OP.

            On the other hand, OP2 by filing written statement separately submitted that no doubt it was sold by the OP2 and OP1 is no way involved in such a purchase by the complainant and further OP1 stated that the OP1 is the only dealer of OP2 and the defect if any caused to rotavator was a manufacturing defect or problem if any at the time of usage of rotavator is due to fault on the part of the complainant in using the same and the OP2 is not liable to be held responsible for such dispute or defect.  It is further submitted that OP1 issued one warranty card on behalf of OP2 stating therein that said tractor will be 25 H.P. used with tractor which was duly accepted and signed by the complainant and OP1 submits that complainant admitted the fact in his submission made on the compliant petition that rotavator is working satisfactorily after attaching the same with 23.5 H.P. tractor in dry land but complainant failed to use rotavator in the wet land as complainant using the tractor having less horse power so under any circumstances complainant cannot get any relief from the OP1.

            Whereas OP2 by filing the written statement has submitted that complainant purchased the rotavator at their own choice and after purchase of the said rotavator OP gave demonstration by rotary tiller at the time of delivery in dry land and complainant was satisfied with the performance of the rotary tiller duly admitted in the complaint as filed by the complainant.

            It is further submitted that it is duly intimated to the complainant that rotary tiller requires 23 + H.P.  tractor for smooth operation of the said rotary tiller and same is duly mentioned in the brochure of the OP1.

            OP2 further submits that at the time of demonstration of the said rotary tiller to the complainant the representative of the OP2 explained the complainant the manner of using the same depending upon fuel for which radiation per minute tractor is running by the travel of the tractor and also explained that the diesel consumption will be 4 litres per hour if rotavator is attached to the tractor for having 23 + H.P. and if extra work is done in that case fuel consumption must be increased and further complainant collected engineers issued warranty card of rotavator and tractor will be 25 H.P. which was duly accepted and signed by the complainant.

            It is further submitted that complainant had admitted all the fact in his complaint and he has also stated that the said rotavator is working satisfactorily after attaching with 23.5 H.P. in dry land but anyhow complainant has alleged that he failed to use the rotavator in the wet land but that is only on the ground the tractor having less H.P.

            It is further submitted by the OP that the technician checked the rotary tiller and confirmed that there is no manufacturing defect which can cause extra load to the tractor and that tractor get stuck in the wet field because if mud is found sticky in nature and water level of the field is not sufficient or tractor is less H.P. and due to some other defect of combination of other importance and it was further submitted that tractor H.P. requirement depends not only upon implementation and use by the complainant but also depends on various factors like soil, moisture level, engine RMP etc.  But the best judgment of tractor H.P. requirement for particular condition can be taken only by tractor customer or tractor supply and about fuel consumption tractor depends on many factors like tractor model, condition of the tractor, type of soil, type of operation skill level of the operator.  It is further submitted that present model rotary tiller is satisfactory working in different parts of India attaching with 24 H.P. tractor and as because complainant did not use it in which he had been suffering but there was no defect in the said machine and accordingly the case should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On indepth study of the compliant including written version and particularly relying upon the document and also argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of OP and complainant himself it is gathered that the complainant purchased one rotavator model Shaktiman one unit of rotavator Shaktiman along with other accessories on payment of Rs.70,880/- and it is nothing but a Shaktiman Rotary Tiller model SRT – 3 and fact remains complainant purchased it being satisfied about the function of the rotavator and also the fixing of the said rotavator with such H.P. tractor and complainant has submitted the brochure wherefrom it is found that SRT-3 rotavator shall be used by fixing 23+ H.P. and there is some other clause in the said brochure how the rotavator shall be used.  And it is also fact that complainant used the same but complainant has tried to say that he used the said rotavator after fixing with a new Mahindra 25 H.P. tractor but complianant’s allegation that even after fixing the same with 25 H.P. tractor the rotavator did not work accordingly but it is sometimes falsely whirling and problem was reported to the OP and OP’s technician Mr. Asif came but he failed to search out the problem and failed to decide the positive cause of such problem and so complainant invariably reported the OP for replacement of the same.

            But anyhow the OPs reported to the complainant as per report of the Asif that there was no technical defect in the product so, there was no fault on the part of the OPs in respect of the product.  Further fact is that complainant has failed to produce any document of any expert opinion in this regard that rotavator was defective but after proper consideration of the complaint it is found practically complainant has failed to produce any document that he has his tractor with 25 H.P. then question of using the rotavator with 25 H.P. tractor is baseless and further it is found that complainant practically purchased rotavator for the purpose of letting out the same to some other person who have their tractor and fact remains the rotavator must be used by a tractor having 25 H.P. and as per report of the OP that said rotavator was not defective.  But anyhow in this case the complainant has failed to produce that he has his any tractor.  So, it is impossible to believe at this stage that complainant purchased the rotavator for his own cultivation and living.  But we are not anyway considering the fact but we have entered into the allegation of the complaint wherefrom we have gathered that OP has also failed to give any satisfactory report of the demonstration in respect of the said rotavator by fixing with tractor made by Mahindra of 25 H.P.  Anyhow complainant has failed to produce any such document that the tractor of Mahindra made having 25 H.P. is in custody.

            At the same time OP also has failed to prove that they examined and demonstrated the said rotavator fixing with 25 H.P.  Mahindra made tractor and collected satisfactory report from the complainant.  So, in the above situation we find that OP must have to show that after fixing with 25 H.P. of Mahindra said rotavator functions as usual because there is no machineries with the rotavator.  Rotavator is tilling part which shall be fixed with the back side of the tractor and fact remains if tractor has no such H.P. to draw, then invariably rotavator must not have to work accordingly and in the above situation we are directing the OPs to take such proper step to show the complainant that their rotavator is not defective after fixing with Mahindra made 25 H.P. tractor and to that effect 10 days demonstration fixing with 25 H.P. Mahindra made tractor must be given to the complainant by the OP and thereafter should collect satisfaction certificate from the complainant thereafter, after collecting satisfaction certificate from the complainant OPs shall have to dispose of the matter may be disposed.  If the OP fails to satisfy the complainant about the grievance in that case OP shall replace the same as per choice of the complainant.  Accordingly, complaint succeeds in part.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with a cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand only). 

            OPs are directed to satisfy the complainant about the actual function of the rotavator fixing with Mahindra made H.P. tractor for about 10 days in wet and dry lands and if it would be found by the parties that same is not working in that case OPs shall have to replace the same by supplying a similar type of rotavator afresh as per choice of the complainant.  but the entire matte shall be disposed of by the complainant and the OP within 3 months from the date of this order and if OP fails to satisfy the complainant in that case OPs shall have to replace the present rotavator by giving a new rotavator or such model as per choice of the complainant within limit of the price which has been paid by the complainant and Seed Corporation and fact remains before exchange or change OPs and complainant shall have to talk with West Bengal Seed Corporation because the said rotavator was purchases by the complainant as per sanctioned of the West Bengal Seed Corporation.

            Even after that if OPs fail to comply the above order in that case OP1 shall deposit entire price amount of Rs.1,00,880/-(Rupees One lakh eight hundred eighty only) along with 10% (ten per cent) interest over the same since the date of purchase and till its full payment to the Forum after taking consent of West Bengal Seed Corporation failing which for disobeying the Forum’s order, OPs (both) shall have to pay penal damages at the rate of Rs.250/-(Rupees Two hundred fifty only) each till full satisfaction of this decree and for disobedience of the Forums order they shall be prosecuted and for which both OPs shall pay further penalty of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) each.