Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/231/2020

Gurinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharowal Kissan Sewa Kender and other - Opp.Party(s)

Sh Dalbir Singh Mangat

06 Jun 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB

 

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/231/2020
Date of Institution	:	10.11.2020
Date of Decision	:	06.06.2023

 

Gurinder Singh aged about 47 years son of Hardayal Singh, resident of Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

……..Complainant

Versus

1. Bharowal Kissan Sewa Kender, Village Bhundri, Hambran Road, Ludhiana, through its Prop./Partner/Manager or Managing Person Ashok Goyal (Mobile No.84236-00002).
2. Ashok Goyal (Mobile No.84236-00002), Managing Person of Bharowal Kissan Sewa Kender, Village-Bhundri, Hambran Road, Ludhiana.

                                                                        …….Opposite Parties

 

Consumer Complaint under Section 34 and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

 

Shri S.K. Aggarwal, President

Ms. ShivaniBhargava, Member

ShriManjit Singh Bhinder, Member

Present:-

 

        For the complainant:Mr. D.S. Mangat, Advocate.

        For opposite parties:Ex parte.

 

ORDER

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service on their part with the prayer for giving following directions to them:-

1. to refund the over charged amount of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 24.6.2020 till realization;
2. to refund the amount of Rs.2,30,000/- of paddy transplanter (8 row) and the seeder to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from 24.6.2020 till realization;

or in the alternative

The opposite parties be directed to provide demonstration and field operation training to the complainant by visiting Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District FatehgarhSahib and to remove all the defects in the paddy transplanter. 

3. Pay Rs.70,000/-to the complainant for seed which was damaged;
4. The opposite parties be directed to provide backup service to the complainant.
5. The opposite parties be directed to provide fault repair service to the complainant so that the paddy transplanter and seeder may not leave the gaps in plantation and also does not damage the paddy upto 50% from the adjoining area or to any extent by defeating the whole purpose of plantation. 
6. The opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant for manual plantation of paddy on 10 acres in Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib as the cost of labour for plantation of paddy was Rs.5,000/- per acre.
7. To pay Rs.75,00,000/-, as damages, for mental and physical harassment by the opposite parties; and
8. To pay costs of proceedings.

2.     The case of the complainant is that in May 2020 the complainant and three other persons booked 4 pieces of M:KK-RRT paddy transplanter (8 row) and 4 pieces of seeder for their personal use at the rate of Rs.2,30,000/- each and Rs.20,000/-, each, respectively.  They paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the opposite parties.  The booking was done in the name of Manjit Singh son of Shyam Singh, resident of Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.  Thus, the advance money paid to opposite parties per head was Rs.50,000/-, each. On 8.6.2020 the complainant paid Rs.2,20,000/- to opposite parties through cheque from his account in Canara Bank, Branch Fatehgarh Sahib.  In this manner, opposite parties received Rs.2,70,000/- from the complainant for paddy transplanter and seeder.  On 24.6.2020 opposite parties delivered the above said paddy transplanter and seeder.  The opposite parties issued the bill to the complainant and undertook/guaranteed the following:-

(i)     That they will provide demonstration and field operation training to the complainant by visiting Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.

(ii)    That they will provide backup service to the complainant;

(iii)   That they will provide fault repair service to the complainant;

(iv)   That they assured that the paddy transplanter and seeder are free from any defect. It is easy and time saving to transplant the paddy and it saves money from being spent on the labour also.

The complainant found following defects in the goods and deficiency in service provided by the opposite parties:-

1. That as per bill dated 24.6.2020, the cost of paddy transplanter is Rs.2,10,000/-.  Thus, the opposite parties overcharged Rs.60,000/- from him for the said article.
2. That opposite parties never provided demonstration and field operation training to the complainant by visiting Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib despite repeated requests.
3. That they never provided back up service to the complainant despite repeated requests.
4. That they never provide fault repair service to the complainant despite repeated requests.  It is submitted that in June/July 2020 the complainant attempted to plant the paddy with paddy transplanter but found that it leaves gaps in plantation and also damages the paddy upto 50% from the adjoining area thereby defeating the whole purpose of plantation.  The matter was brought to their notice, but they did nothing.  The articles/goods provided by them have the manufacturing defect.
5. That they assured that the paddy transplanter and seeder are free from any defect and it is easy and time saving to transplant the paddy and it saves money from being spent on the labour.  The complainant had to engage manual labour for plantation of paddy in the land owned by him and his other family members which is nearly 10 acres and the cost of labor for plantation of paddy was Rs.5,000/- per acre.  The complainant had also purchased seed for Rs.70,000/-, which was damaged. 

It is further averred that the complainant being a farmer had purchased the above said goods and availed the services of the opposite parties in order to grow produce to eke out a livelihood.  The complainant sent legal notice by registered post on 29.9.2020 to the opposite parties pointing out the defects in the goods, overcharging and not providing any after sale service or backup to him. However, they did not receive that notice and returned the same undelivered.  Alleging deficiency in service on their part the present complaint has been filed for issuance of above mentioned directions to them.

3.     The OPs did not appear despite service and were proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 18.2.2021.

4.     In support of his case the complainant tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-12 along with documents i.e. copy of Booking Letter as Ex.C-1, copy of Tax Invoice dated 24.6.2020 as Ex.C-2, copy of E-Way Bill System as Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account as Ex.C-4, copy of bill of seed dated 23.5.2020 as Ex.C-5, copy of jamabandi for the year 2014-2015 as Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice dated 29.9.2020 as Ex.C7 along with postal receipts as Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and original envelopes containing legal notice as Ex.C-10 and Ex.C-11.

5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

6.     The main issue raised by the complainant is regarding overcharging of Rs.60,000/- by the OPs  for the paddy transplanter besides other issues.  The complainant has proved on record booking of paddy transplanter with the OPs on 30.5.2020, vide Ex.C-1.  The booking letter, Ex.C-1, is for booking of four pieces of paddy transplanter and Rs.2,00,000/- has been paid collectively by one Manjit Singh (the complainant in CC No.230 of 2020) on his behalf and on behalf of the other three persons including the present complainant i.e. Rs.50,000/-, each.  Thus, it is clear beyond doubt that the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- as the booking amount with the OPs, vide booking letter, Ex.C-1.  The complainant has also proved payment of Rs.2,20,000/- to the OPs on 28.6.2020 through his bank account, vide Statement of Account Ex.C-4.  Thus, in all, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the OPs towards the price of one paddy transplanter in question. As per the booking letter, Ex.C-1, the cost of paddy transplanter is mentioned as Rs.2,30,000/-.  However, as per the Tax Invoice, Ex.C-2, the price of one number paddy transplanter has been shown as Rs.2,10,000/-.  The complainant has, therefore, raised the issue of overcharging for paddy transplanter by Rs.60,000/-.

7.     The complainant has proved legal notice dated 29.9.2020 issued to the OPs, vide Ex.C-6, wherein the details of payment of Rs.2,70,000/- to the OPs have been furnished.  The OPs have not submitted any version, reply to the legal notice or any evidence to rebut the same.  Rather the OPs chose not to appear despite service and have been proceeded against ex parte, vide order dated 18.2.2021.  Hence, the averments made by the complainant and the evidence produced by him in support of those averments have gone unrebutted.

8.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties have overcharged the complainant by Rs.60,000/- besides not honouring other obligations such as providing of demonstration and field operation training, not providing any back-up services or fault repair services to the complainant.  Therefore, it is held that the opposite parties are definitely deficient in providing service to the complainant. 

9.     Resultantly, this complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under:-

i)      to refund Rs.60,000/- overcharged by them for paddy transplanter to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order till the date of realization, failing which the rate of interest shall be 12% per annum.        

ii)     to provide demonstration and field operation training to the complainant by visiting Village Rajindernagar, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib and to remove all the defects in the paddy transplanter.

iii)    to provide back-up service to the complainant.

iv)    to provide fault repair service to the complainant so that the paddy transplanter and seeder may not leave gaps in the transplanter and also do not damage the paddy from the adjoining area.

v)     to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment; and

 vi)   to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation costs.

Copies of this order be sent to the parties as per Rules. 

10.   The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to paucity of staff.

 (S.K. AGGARWAL)

     PRESIDENT

 

 

 

(MS. SHIVANI BHARGAVA)

                MEMBER

 

 

 (MANJIT SINGH BHINDER)

                MEMBER

Pronounced on :06.06.2023

bansal