Haryana

Kaithal

238/20

Ramdiya - Complainant(s)

Versus

Baljit Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Rajiv Goswami

02 May 2023

ORDER

                    

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.238/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.08.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:02.05.2023.

Ramdiya S/o Sh. Pritam Puri, age 50 years, R/o Vill. Pinjupura, Tehsil Kalayat, Distt. Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Baljit Singh Proprietor of M/s. Deep Agro Implements & Engg., Jind Road, Byepass, near Dera Saccha Souda, Kaithal-136027 (Haryana).
2. M/s. Deep Agro Implements & Engg., through its Proprietor, Baljit Singh, Jind Road, Byepass, near Saccha Souda, Kaithal-136027 (Haryana).
3. M/s. SARON MECHANICAL WORKS, through its Manager/Managing Director/competent and concerned Authority, Mansa Road, Cheema Mandi-148029, Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).
4. JAGATJIT GROUP OF INDUSTRY (Saron Mechanical Works) through its Manager/Managing Director/competent and concerned Authority, Mansa Road, Cheema Mandi-148029 Tehsil Sunam, Distt. Sangrur (Punjab).

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Rajiv Goswami, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Balwinder Kumar, Advocate for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                OPs No.3 & 4 exparte.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Ramdiya-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased an agricultural implement/machine marka Jagatjit Happy-Seeder vide bill bearing No.347 dt. 30.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,57,999.52 paise with a full warranty of 15 months from the OPs No.1 & 2.  The complainant has got subsidy amount of Rs.76,500/- from the Govt. Department on 30.12.2019 after completion of all requirements.  At the time of purchasing the said implement, OPs No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that the said implement will sow the seeds etc. by cutting paddy/rice straw very finely without getting jammed by the paddy/rice straw or any type of straw.  On 07.11.2019 the Ops delivered the actual physical possession of the said HAPPY-SEEDER machine to the complainant after completing all the formalities.  The case of complainant is that on 09.11.2019 the said happy-seeder machine was first used/operated by the complainant to sow wheat in his fields as per given conditions and instructions but the said happy-seeder machine got failed not only sowing the seeds but also completely failed to cut out the paddy straw from the fields.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.          Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared before this Commission, whereas  OPs No.3 & 4 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 04.12.2020 passed by this commission.  OPs No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission; that the complainant had purchased a Happy Seeder Machine in question from the answering Ops for a consideration of Rs.1,57,999/- vide bill No.347 dt. 30.08.2019; that the complainant had paid of Rs.1,00,000/- to the answering OPs on different dates and balance sale price of Rs.57,999/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the answering OPs after receiving subsidy from the Haryana Govt; that the complainant has already received the subsidy amount from the Haryana Govt. but he has failed to make the payment of balance sale price of Rs.57,999/- to the answering Ops till today; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C22 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the respondents No.1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R27 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased an agricultural implement/machine marka Jagatjit Happy-Seeder vide bill bearing No.347 dt. 30.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.1,57,999.52 paise with a full warranty of 15 months from the OPs No.1 & 2.  It is further argued that the complainant has got subsidy amount of Rs.76,500/- from the Govt. Department on 30.12.2019 after completion of all requirements.  At the time of purchasing the said implement, OPs No.1 & 2 assured the complainant that the said implement will sow the seeds etc. by cutting paddy/rice straw very finely without getting jammed by the paddy/rice straw or any type of straw.  It is further argued that on 07.11.2019 the Ops delivered the actual physical possession of the said HAPPY-SEEDER machine to the complainant after completing all the formalities.  It is further argued that on 09.11.2019 the said happy-seeder machine was first used/operated by the complainant to sow wheat in his fields as per given conditions and instructions but the said happy-seeder machine got failed not only sowing the seeds but also completely failed to cut out the paddy straw from the fields.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 has argued that the complainant had purchased a Happy Seeder Machine in question from the Ops No.1 & 2 for a consideration of Rs.1,57,999/- vide bill No.347 dt. 30.08.2019.  It is further argued that the complainant had paid of Rs.1,00,000/- to the OPs No.1 & 2 on different dates and balance sale price of Rs.57,999/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant to the  OPs after receiving subsidy from the Haryana Govt.  It is further argued that the complainant has already received the subsidy amount from the Haryana Govt. but he has failed to make the payment of balance sale price of Rs.57,999/- to the answering Ops till today.

8.             An application under Section 38(2)(c) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 was moved by the complainant for technical expert to see the defect in the aforesaid Happy Seeder Machine.  Mark-A is the report of technical expert namely Shishpal, Mech. Tractor Instructor, Govt. ITI, Kaithal vide which it has been stated that Jagatjit Happy Seeder Machine is not O.K. because the gear liver adjustment of play is over as per norms of the company, the present gear liver adjustment play of Happy Seeder is much higher than normal way and the said machine pressure wheel is not attached so that the machine is not working properly.

9.             So, from the aforesaid report of expert, it is clear that the expert has mentioned in his report that the Happy Seeder Machine in question was not O.K.  During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has contended that the aforesaid expert had no mechanical knowledge and he is not authorized person for mechanical line.  He further contended that this report is vague and not authentic report but on perusal of record, it is clear that the aforesaid person is duly appointed by the Govt.. I.T.I., Kaithal and his designation is Mech. Tractor Instruction.  Moreover, the OPs have not filed any objection on the aforesaid expert report.  So, the OPs have failed to rebut the aforesaid report.  The another contention of ld. counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 is that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on different dates with the OPs No.1 & 2 and the amount of Rs.57,999/- is still pending against the complainant towards the balance payment regarding purchase of machine in question.  But the Ops have failed to produce on file any documentary evidence from which it could be proved that the amount of Rs.57,999/- is still pending against the complainant.  Moreover, the OPs No.1 & 2 have already filed a suit for recovery of Rs.57,999/- against the complainant in the Civil Court as per Annexure-R3 and the same is pending between both the parties in the said court.  So, this contention of Ops No.1 & 2 has also no force. 

10.            The grievance of the complainant is that the said machine in question was defective from the very beginning.  From perusal of record, it is clear that the complainant purchased the Happy Seeder Machine in question from the OPs No.1 & 2 on 30.08.2019.  According to the complainant, on 09.11.2019 when the said happy seeder machine was first used/operated by the complainant to sow wheat in his fields but the said machine got failed.  The complainant has placed on file photograph of said defective machine as per Annexure-C2.  The complainant also made complaint to C.M.Window on 05.03.2020 as per Annexure-C4 but the Ops did not resolve the grievances of complainant.  The case of complainant is fully substantiated by the expert report, Mark-A as mentioned above.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

11.            Thus, as a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we direct the Ops jointly and severally to replace the defective Happy Seeder Machine in question with the new one of the same value as purchased by the complainant from the OPs No.1 & 2 vide invoice dt. 30.08.2019 as per Annexure-C1.  The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.          

12.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.