Orissa

Cuttak

CC/345/2023

Kishore kumarJena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dillip Kumar Panda,Managing Partner - Opp.Party(s)

A K Mohanty & associates

12 Apr 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.345/2023

 

Kishore Chandra Jena,

S/o: Alekha Jena,

At/PO:Raipur,Via:Phulnakhara,

P.S:Cuttack Sadar,Dist:Cuttack.                                  ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

         Dillip Kumar Panda, Managing Partner,

         Trispan Farm Equipments & Engineering,

         At/PO:Patenigaon(Barti Bus Stop),

         P.S:Patenigaon,Dist:Jagatsinghpur.                                ... Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     03.10.2023

                Date of Order:     12.04.2024

 

For the complainant:           Mr. A.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.                :                    None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.            

          Case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased a Combine Harvester 88 HP machine of model no.4LZ-5.OZ from the O.P.  It is stated by the complainant that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the O.P towards the cost of machine, engine, accessories, fees and insurance.  The further case of the complainant is that the machine cost is Rs.11,98,000/-, but the O.P has not given insurance certificate to him as well as he has not furnished the receipts of other expenses for which he had realized Rs.15,00,000/- from him.  It is alleged by the complainant that the harvester machine is a defective one and the gear box of the said machine broke down on 30.11.2022. Moreover, it is stated by the complainant that on dt. 1.12.2022, the self-starter problem of the machine was started as well as engine was seized, which was repaired on 27.4.2023 by the O.P.   Again, the machine alleged to have showed other defects and the complainant intimated such defect to the O.P on 17.6.23 but the O.P did not take any action.  It is further stated by the complainant that as the O.P has not given insurance certificate to him; he is not able to operate the machine.  The complainant alleged that time and again he had requested the O.P to remove the defect of the machine and to supply him the insurance certificate but the O.P did not respond to his request.  Finally, on 18.8.2023, the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P to refund the consideration amount of Rs.15,00,000/- but the O.P remained silent and suggested him to handover the machine to him at Jagatsinghpur for necessary repairing.  As the O.P did not rectify the defects of the machine as well as he did not refund the excess amount realized from him, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.P to refund Rs.15,00,000/- towards consideration amount of the Harvester machine.  The complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his mental agony and harassment as well as litigation expenses.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, the O.P has been set exparte.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, for the sake of convenience, point no.ii is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant has alleged that he had paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the O.P towards the consideration money of Harvester machine as well as other expenses including insurance premium. But the complainant has not filed money receipt of Rs.15,00,000/-.  The invoice as filed by the complainant reveals that the cost of the machine is Rs.11,98,000/-.  The complainant failed to prove with sufficient evidence that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- towards the consideration money to the O.P for purchasing the harvester machine.  The complainant failed to prove that he had paid necessary fees towards the insurance premium.  Hence, it cannot be said that any sort of deficiency of service on the part of the O.P in that respect.  The allegation of the complainant to the effect that the Harvester machine is a defective one has no basis as he has not filed any evidence to that effect.  However, the O.P while replying the pleader’s notice as filed by the complainant reveals that he had requested the complainant to hand over the machine for necessary repairs but the complainant did not take any effective steps to that effect.  In view of the above, it cannot be said that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P.  Accordingly, this point goes against the complainant.

Points no,I & iii.

          From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

          The case is dismissed exparte against the O.P and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 12^th day of April,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

         

                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                Member

                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President