Heard learned counsel for both the sides.

2.       The captioned complaint case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  seeking the sum assured along with compensation with litigation cost for about Rs. 33,15,000/-. The complainant alleged about the deficiency in service against the opposite party.  

3.        The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a Paddy Harvesting Machine at the cost of Rs. 22,15,000/-. The machine went for trial to Jaleswar by the dealer. It is alleged that the machine did not function well. When the matter was lodged before the Collector, Jagatsinghpur, he directed for giving another machine in respect of old one and accordingly, opposite parties 1 and 2 supplied another Paddy Harvesting Machine to the complainant. It is alleged that the second one also did not work well. When the matter was again brought to the notice of the Collector on 16.3.2018, the concerned Collector directed the Dy. Director Agriculture, Jagatsinghpur to take necessary action for supply of new Harvesting Machine. Thereafter, the complainant was supplied with another machine, but the complainant alleged that this is old one and also did not work. The matter is also informed to the Police. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the present complaint petition.

4.        The opposite party no.1  filed written version separately stating that the petition is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file case. The opposite party no.2 filed written version stating that the complainant is not coming within the ambit of Section 2(1)d(i) of Consumer Protection Act. It is also stated  that the complainant has not informed about the defect. He denied the allegations made in the complaint petition. However, on the instruction of the Collector, they have supplied one new machine. That machine works well and there is no manufacturing defect in the same. It is further alleged that the complainant used the machine for commercial purpose. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5.        After going through the pleadings, we are of the opinion that the complainant has to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

6.        The complainant in order to prove her case has examined herself and also filed documents. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the machine from opposite party no.2. It is also not in dispute that the allegation was based with regard to the defect of the machine and the same has been attended to, but the complainant was not satisfied. It is admitted fact that the new machine was given to the complainant. Now the question comes as to (i) whether the complainant has proved that the second new machine was a defective one or not?

7.        In order to ascertain the truth, we have requested the Collector, Jagatsinghpur to examine the matter and submit a report. The report of the Collector is available on record. At the instance of the Collector, Jagatsinghpur, Verification was made. The Verification Report reads as follows:-

              “ We had proceeded  to the village Dondow, P.O. Baijanga, Dist. Jagatsinghpur on dated 20.2.2023. Verified there one no. Of Combine Harvester in the name of Smt. Santilata Debadasi, wife of Chandrabhusan Das which was lying unused in front of the beneficiary’s residence. The model no. Is preet.949 with Eng. No. HJHM442330, Chasis No. PTC-05 2018 042AF. As verified, the Combine Harvester is not in running condition at present. The beneficiary had received the Harvester on dated 22.7.2018 from the dealer. It is already 5 years old till date and it is not possible to ascertain now whether the machine was a new one or used one at the time of delivery.”

8.        The evidence of the complainant with regard to second machine is that it is a defective one. The Collector, Jagatsinghpur in his verification report stated that the same machine has been examined but could not give correct report whether it was defective or new one and no other expert opinion is available, we are of the view that the complainant has proved by her affidavit that the machine is a defective one. Moreover, the above report states that the machine is not operating for five years which shows that due to defect in machine, it is lying with complainant.  

9.        It is alleged by  O.P. that the machine has been used for commercial purpose but failed to prove the same. Even if the complainant has found from the beginning that the first machine giving defect which remained idle without use, the cause of action arises. Thus the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the Issue no.I is answered accordingly.

10.     With regard to the prayer of the complainant to refund the cost or compensation, it is revealed from the evidence of the complainant that complainant has been put to harassment and number of petitions of grievaances  are available on record. Therefore, the opposite party has to compensate the complainant.

11.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby direct the opposite parties to remove the deficiency by taking back the second machine and pay Rs. 18,00,000/- ( Rupees Eighteen Lakhs) as cost of the machine because after deducting the depreciation value to the complainant said cost to be refunded. Apart from this, the opposite parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) to the complainant. Besides, a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) is payable by the opposite parties to the complainant. All the above payments shall be made within a period of 45 days failing which all will carry 12% interest.

           The complaint case is accordingly disposed of.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.