Date of Filing:      16.10.2018 

                                                                                                                Date of Disposal:  19.02.2020

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

THIRUVALLUR-1

PRESENT: THIRU.   J. JUSTIN DAVID., M.A., M.L.,                           .…. PRESIDENT

                   TMT.K.PRAMEELA, M.Com.,                                            …….MEMBER-I

                   THIRU.  D.BABU VARADHARAJAN, B.Sc., B.L.,             ……MEMBER-II

CC No.53/2018

THIS WEDNESDAY THE 19^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020

Mrs.N.Vasantha,

W/o.Sri.V.Narayanan,

208, Lakshmi Nagar Extension,

Porur, Chennai -600 116.                                                            ….. Complainant. 

                                                                               //Vs//

1.Ayyan Agro Services,

   Plot No.6, Siva Vishnu Koil Street,

   Padmavathy Main Road,

   (Opp LIC) Near Sree Niketan School,

   Rajajipuram, Periakuppam,  Tiruvallore - 602 001.

2.Regional Manager, Kisan Kraft Limited,

   Sri Huchhanna Tower,

   No.4, 1^st Main, 7-A Cross,

   Maruthi layout, Dazarahalli,

   HAF Post, Hebbal, Bangalore - 560 024.

3.Assistant Executive Engineer,

   Agriculture Engineering Department,

   NGO Colony, Periakuppam,

   Tiruvallore - 602 001.                                                                 …Opposite parties.

This Complaint is coming upon for final hearing before us on 29.01.2020 in the presence of M/s. P.Thirupathiraj, Counsel for the complainant and M/s.Arul Gnana Prakash, Counsel for the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties were set ex-parte and after perusal of the both side documents and hearing the arguments on both sides, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.J.JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been preferred by the complainant Under Section 12 of the consumer protection Act, 1986 against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.61,630/- towards cost of machine and to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and to pay cost of this proceedings.

2.The brief averment in the complaint is as follows:-

The complainant owns 15 acres of agricultural land with well irrigation at Thiruvallur and she is cultivating the land by rising long term crops and wanted to purchase the Inter cultivator machine. Therefore the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party in the month of April 2017 to recommend suitable machine. The 3^rd opposite party recommended the approved Inter Cultivator machine supplied by the 2^nd opposite party through its dealer 1^st opposite party at Thiruvallur. The Agriculture department of Tamil Nadu Government is also providing subsidy to the farmers for purchasing the said machine.  On his recommendation the 1^st opposite party gave the quotation no.Q.054 dated 09.09.2017 of inter cultivator machine with specification of the machine model KK-IC-200P with offer price of Rs.53,000/-. Finally the 1^st opposite party agreed to supply the machine at the cost of Rs.61360/- with specification of power – 5.7HP; CC-196: Engine type – 4stroke; ram-3600; fuel used – petrol and issued the revised quotation no.Q0417 dated 11.09.2017. Therefore the 1^st opposite party supplied the machine directly at the complainant field on 16.09.2017 after paid the cost of machine in advance by way of DD.No.867079 dated 11.09.2017. On verification of the machine it was found the following specifications:- model KK-IC-200P, Engine serial No.KK1705 1116 fitted with engine model KK-PE4-203 (4HP) related to the model KK-IC-205P with operation manual of Model KK-PE4-203 and Kisan Kraft product details of machine model KK-IC-205P.  Therefore the complainant sent a letter dated 20.09.2017 to the opposite party for returning of the rejected machine which was not in conformity of specification on the machine agreed to supply as specified in the quotation of the 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party agreed to replace the machine after consulting with 2^nd opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party supplied another machine of model KK-IC-200P replacing the 1^st supplied machine on 03.10.2017.  After verification of technical details it was found that rated power of 2^nd machine and displacement details punched on the name place of the machine were technically incorrect when compared with the details given in the operating manual supplied with the machine under technical specification.  Moreover, as per technical web site details of 2^nd opposite party, the machine fitted with engine serial no.KK-1708 19035 for the model KK-PE4-203 is related to the model KK-IC-205P.  Therefore the 2^nd machine was evidently not the machine model KK-IC-200P fitted with 5.7 HP engine that was offered by 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties, besides, no serial number of engine and date of manufacture were found in the name place of the machine attached with the body of engine and warranty card attached with the manual was also not duly filled up and signed by the 1^st opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party suggested accepting the machine of model KK-IC-300D which is equivalent to the machine model KK-IC-200P of 5.7 HP as replacement.  However, the complainant hesitated to accept the proposal of the 2^nd opposite party since the 2^nd opposite party provides with two specifications on records for every product which confuses the purchasers.  The official of the 2^nd opposite party with 1^st opposite party admitting the discrepancies in the specification of the machine supplied against the offered specifications they accepted to replace the machine with another lower power machine of model KK-IC-200P (501 H.P) fitted with engine model 168 FB of Chinese origin at the meeting held on 30.01.2018.  The 3^rd machine bearing engine serial no. KK 1801020299 replacement of 2^nd machine was delivered by the 2^nd opposite party through the 1^st opposite party on 24.05.2018 at garden site and was acknowledged pending inspection for conformity and acceptance. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties supplied machine in specific model fitted with lower powered engine on higher price with the market price was 30% less than the machine price.  Such attitudes of the opposite parties are unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not in a position to supply the machine either with offered specification at the first instance or committed specification dated 30.01.2018 at last instance.  In all three times the opposite parties were able to supply only the machine that was fitted with the engine KK-PE4-203 (4-HP) which is nothing but an unfair trade practice as well as cheating the customer.  The non-supply of specified machine and supplied of lower power machine on receipt of higher price of Rs.61,630/- as against the market price of Rs.46,640/-, the way both 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties cheated the complainant and has caused severe mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complainant has incurred loss due to the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and mental agony due to the deficiency of service of the 2^nd opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3. The contention of written version of the  2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The present complaint has been filed solely with the intention to harassing the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party is an ISO 9001:2005 certified wholesale importer and distributor of high quality agricultural machinery and equipment.  It is in the business of importing and marketing affordable, good quality, efficient and trouble free farm equipment to small and marginal farmers.  This opposite party in the course of their business among range of agricultural machinery products offered by them, imports and markets an agricultural Inter-cultivator fitted with 4 stroke petrol engine bearing model No.KK-IC-200P.  The inter cultivator is fitted with 168-FB model 4 stroke gasoline engine having maximum power of 5.7 HP (as declared by the manufacturer) 5.4HP under Indian testing conditions and displacement of 196CC.  The inter cultivator is manufactured by changing Weima Agricultural machinery company limited, China.  The said machine is imported and distributed in India by the 2^nd opposite party.  The inter cultivator has been duly tested by the northern region farm machinery training and testing institute, Hisar, Haryana, an institute run under the auspices of ministry of agriculture and farmers welfare, Government of India.  The agriculture department, Government of Tamil Nadu after fully satisfying itself with the functioning and efficiency of the inter cultivator has accorded subsidy to farmers who purchase inter cultivator. The inter cultivator is sold by authorized dealers of 2^nd opposite party to customers (a) under subsidy schemes offered by various State Governments as well as (b) through counter sales. The complainant in September 2017 had purchased in inter cultivator bearing model KK-IC-200P fitted with 168 FB model 4 stroke petrol engine from Ayyan Agro service (“Ayyan”) i.e the 1^st opposite party.  The inter cultivator was purchased by the complainant under subsidy scheme offered by the agricultural department, State Government of Tamil Nadu. The 2^nd opposite party subsequently learnt that the complainant claiming she was supplied with a lesser power machine instead of the inter cultivator ordered by her had raised an issue with Ayyan.  On receipt of the grievance from the complainant, the inter cultivator supplied to the complainant duly inspected by Ayyan.  The complainant not satisfied with the explanation provided by Ayyan, sent a letter to the assistant executive engineer, agriculture engineering department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ngo colony, Periakuppam, Thiruvallur alleging that she was supplied with a 4 HP engine inter cultivator instead of the inter cultivator ordered by her.  Therefore on 03.10.2017 pursuant to the deliberations between complainant and her husband Mr.Narayanan, who the 2^nd opposite party understand is a qualified engineer, proprietor of Ayyan and AEE, Thiruvallur a new KK-IC-200P inter cultivator imported for counter sales was provided to the complainant as replacement for the machine originally purchased be her. The complainant accepted the machine and provided a letter to Ayyan, acknowledging that they are fully satisfied with the specifications and functioning of the new inter cultivator supplied to them. The 2^nd opposite party received a legal notice dated 18 November 2017 issued under the instruction of the complainant containing false and frivolous allegations and for which the 2^nd opposite party through their counsel had issued a reply notice dated 22.12.2017 to the complainant providing suitable reply to the false, frivolous and untenable allegations made by the complainant.  The complainant was not interested in KK-IC-200P anymore.  Therefore after mutual deliberations the specific demand made by Mr.Narayanan, the 2^nd opposite party offered to replace the inter cultivator purchased by the complainant with KK-IC-300D inter cultivator, a diesel variant of the KK-IC-200P without any additional cost, despite the diesel variant being costlier than KK-IC-200P.  The said offer of the 2^nd opposite party was duly accepted by the complainant and her husband. The 2^nd opposite party was willing to replace the 1^st replacement inter cultivator with a new inter cultivator of the complainant’s choice.  While so, Mr. Narayanan for the reasons best known to him back tracked from his initial acceptance to receive KK-IC-300D, insisted that the complainant should be provided with a brand new KK-IC-200P model inter cultivator.  Pursuant to demand made by Mr.Narayanan, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to supply a brand new KK-IC-200P inter cultivator to the complainant on or before 5.5.2018. The brand new replacement inter cultivator was demonstrated in the farm of the complainant.  While so, to the surprise of the AEE, Thiruvallur and officials of the 2^nd opposite party the complainant and her husband refused to take delivery of the new inter cultivator provided to them without assigning any reason. After satisfying themselves with the specification of the machine the complainant provided an acknowledgement that the inter cultivator is in conformity to the relevant specification of KK-IC-200P. The complainant after a period of two weeks since accepting the replacement inter cultivator issued a letter dated 5.6.2018 making frivolous allegation that the inter cultivator provided to her was not in conformity to the agreed specification. The 2^nd opposite party considering the indifferent attitude of complainant and her husband, despite replacing the machine on two different occasion, the 2^nd opposite party not willing to precipitate the issue any further offered to repay the entire sale consideration of Rs.61,630/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the inter cultivator. The complainant has preferred this vexatious complaint with the sole intention of causing hardship to the 2^nd opposite party and thereby gaining unlawfully out of the same. The averments made in the complaint itself clearly prove and substantiate that the complainant has not made out a case for any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against the 2^nd opposite party.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed by this forum.

4. In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked.  While so, on the side of the 2^nd opposite party proof affidavit filed as his evidence and Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked and on behalf of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties filed Vakalat for their counsels and thereafter non appearance their counsels before this forum, they were set ex-parte and also adduced oral argument on both side of complainant and 2^nd opposite party.

5. At this juncture, the point for consideration before this forum is:-

(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?

(2) Whether the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are liable to pay a sum of Rs.61,630/- as the cost of machine to the complainant?

(3) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation and cost from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?

(4) To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?

6. Point Nos.1 & 3:-

The complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party in the month of April 2017 to purchase a inter cultivator machine for his agricultural land and for which the 3^rd opposite party recommended and approved inter cultivator machine supplied by the 2^nd opposite party through its dealer 1^st opposite party.  On the basis of the approval, the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party to purchase a inter cultivator machine model KK-IC-200P at the cost of Rs.61360/-.  The 1^st opposite party supplied the machine directly to the complainant on 16.09.2017.

7. The complainant alleged that the inter cultivator machine supplied by the 1^st opposite party is not as specified in the quotation of the opposite party and therefore the complainant sent a letter dated 20.09.2017 to the 3^rd opposite party for return of the rejected machine.  According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party agreed to replace the machine after consulting with 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party supplied another machine model KK-IC-200P replacing 1^st supply machine.  The opposite party also admitted the supply of another machine to the complainant and the complainant also accepted the machine and fully satisfied with specification of the machine. Therefore the opposite party has replaced with a new inter cultivator machine to the complainant.

8. The complainant alleged that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties supplied the machine in specific model fitted with lower powered engine on higher price and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are not in a position to supply the machine either with offered specification at the first instance or committed specification dated 30.01.2018 at last instance. The complainant further alleged that in all three times the opposite parties were able to supply only the machine that was fitted with the engine KK-PE4-203 (4-HP) and committed deficiency in service.

9. The opposite party contended that the opposite party had supplied the machine as per specification given by the complainant for the first time and also replacing the machine in consulting with the complainant for 2^nd time and also replacing the machine for 3^rd time as per request of the complainant.  So the complainant changed his specification for three times.  The opposite party also agreed to supply the machine as requested by the complainant.  But the complainant has not satisfied with the machine and alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

10. On perusal of the complaint and other documents filed by the complainant and the opposite party, this forum came to conclusion that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands.  The complainant has not filed the copy of correct documents, at the same time the complainant field incomplete documents taken from the other website. The documents are not taken from the website of the opposite party and therefore this forum unable to accept the document taken from other website.  Further the inter cultivator machine was being manufactured at China and to import to the India and the said manufacturer is not added as a party in the complaint.  Further there is no proof on the side of the complainant there is manufacturing defect in the machine.  The case of the complainant is that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties has not supplied the machine ordered by the complainant.  Further the opposite party replaced the machine for two times and the complainant also accepted the same. Hence there is no question of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  At the same time, the opposite party supplied the inter cultivator machine approved by the agricultural engineer department. The 1^st opposite party replaced and in turn the complainant accepted the same after due verification.  But the complainant has not satisfied with the machine and filed this complaint. Therefore the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. Hence there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Therefore the complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Thus the point No.1 & 3 are answered accordingly.

11. Point No.2:-

The complainant prays for an order directing the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.61,630/- as the cost of the machine to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party in their written version Para No.8 stated as follows:-

“The 2^nd opposite party submit that considering the indifferent attitude of complainant and her husband, despite replacing the machine on two different occasions, the 2^nd opposite party not willing to precipitate the issue any further offered to repay the entire sale consideration of Rs.61,630/- paid by the complainant for purchasing the inter cultivator.  The said offer made by the 2^nd opposite party was readily accepted by the complainant and her husband.”

12. Further the 2^nd opposite party in their written argument also stated that to provide a quietus to the entire issue the 2^nd opposite party has also offered to return the entire sale consideration paid by the complainant for purchasing the KK-IC-200P model inter cultivator but the complainant has refused the said offer.  Hence the 2^nd opposite party is ready to pay the sale consideration of Rs.61,630/- to the complainant and the complainant also agreed to receive the amount during the argument stage and returned the machine to the 2^nd opposite party.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.4:-

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  Accordingly, the 2^nd opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.61,630/- (Rupees sixty one thousand six hundred thirty only) towards cost of machine to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order on condition to return the Kisan Kraft Inter-Cultivator (petrol) Model: KK-IC-200P old machine to the 2^nd opposite party. With respect to other reliefs and also this complaint against the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties are dismissed.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the president and pronounced by us in the open forum of this 19^th day of February 2020.

      -Sd-                                                           -Sd-                                                   -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                             MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the 2^nd opposite party:-

        -Sd-                                                  -Sd-                                                         -Sd-

  MEMBER-II                                      MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT