DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/254 of 2.11.2015

                                      Decided on:        21.7.2016

Gurmukh Singh S/o Bahadur Singh R/o village Nanowal Mand, Tehsil Balachour, District Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar.     

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.      Harjas Agro Industries,opp.Bansal Auto Works, Patiala Road, Nabha-147201, District Patiala through its partner Sukhwinder Singh.

2.      Sukhwinder Singh partner Harjas Agro Industries, opp. Bansal Auto Works, Patiala Road, Nabha-147201. District Patiala.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Manjit Singh Sethi, Advocate

For Ops:                       Ex-parte.           

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. The complainant approached the Ops on 8.3.2014 for the purchase of self propelled combine harvester, model HARJAS-998 for self employment in order to earn his livelihood. The Ops issued the quotation dated 16.3.2014 for Rs.13.50lacs but lateron the complainant again approached the Ops on 30.3.2014 for the sale/adjustment of his old ‘Arjun Tractor’ against the purchase of the self propelled combine Harvester, Model HARJAS-998 and accordingly the Ops agreed to purchase the old tractor for Rs.5lacs.The complainant delivered the possession of the old tractor to the Ops on 30.3.2014.The complainant  paid Rs.4lacs cash at that time and the remaining amount of Rs.5lacs was agreed to be paid at the time of the delivery of the machine. The Ops as per the order form dated 30.3.2014 assured the complainant that the delivery of the combine harvester will be given on 16.4.2014 and the complainant promised to pay the balance amount at the time of the delivery of the combine harvester machine. It is further averred that the Ops failed to deliver the combine harvester machine within the prescribed period as per order form dated 30.3.2014.The complainant made various visits as well as made telephonic calls many times but the Ops failed to deliver the said machine .The complainant also got served the legal notice upon the Ops on 11.2.2015 through counsel through speed post bearing receipt No.RP316735918IN and RP316735904IN dated 13.2.2015 but to no effect. Due to non supply of the combine harvester machine, the complainant suffered financial loss and also underwent a lot of harassment. Ultimately, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
2. Notice of the complaint was issued against the Ops. The notice was received back with the report, ‘not found. Again the notice was issued against Op no.1 only as virtually  the two ops were the same( Op no.1 being the firm and Op no.2 appears to be its Partner) accompanied by a letter to the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Nabha , who got the notice served by way of affixation . Again nobody turned up on its behalf. Ultimately the Ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
4. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and gone through the evidence on record.
5. Ex.C1 is the quotation of the combine Harvester machine dated 16.3.2014 for an amount of Rs.13,50,000/-.Ex.C2 is the order form for the Harvester combine dated 30.3.2014 showing the price of the machine as Rs.14lacs, and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4lac cash and an amount of Rs.5lac is shown as adjusted against price of the old Arjun Tractor which the complainant sold to the Op and the balance amount outstanding against the complainant is shown as Rs.4lac and the delivery date of the harvester is mentioned as 15.4.2014.
6. In the present case, the Op had to deliver the harvester combine on 15.4.2014 and the balance amount of Rs.4lac was to be made by the complainant at the time of taking the delivery of the Harvester combine. When the Op did not deliver the machine on the promised date, the complainant made various telephonic calls but the Ops failed to deliver the Harvester. On 11.2.2015 the complainant got served a legal notice through speed post upon the Ops but to no use. The summons of the   court sent to Ops were also received back undelivered with the remarks ‘Op not found despite repeated visits’.
7. On account of the non-delivery of the Harvester combine, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and also suffered financial loss. Failure on the part of the Ops to deliver the possession of the Harvester combine amounted to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to Ops no.1&2 to refund the amount of Rs.9lac to the complainant with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. Since we have already granted interest to the complainant, therefore, we do not find it appropriate to award any compensation. However, we find that the complainant is entitled to get litigation cost amounting to Rs.5000/-. Order be complied by the Ops within a period of 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order.
9.  

Dated:21.7.2016

                                       Neelam Gupta                        A.P.S.Rajput

                                 Member                      President