DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA

Complaint No. CC/16/464 of 18/11/2016              Decided on          20/09/2018

Jagdev Gir son of Sh. Sukhdev Gir, Resident of Village Sawai Singh Wala, Tehsil and  District Patiala.                                                                                                                                              ….Complainant

       Versus

Hira Agro Industries,  Manufacturers of Harvesting Combines and Spare

Parts, Cantt Road, Nabha, Tehsil Nabha, District Patiala through its

authorized signatory.

….Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the                          Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                                                  Sh. Kanwaleet Singh, Member

Present:

For Complainant : Sh. J.S. Nararwal Adv.       

For Opposite party : Sh. S. S. Grewal Adv.

ORDER                                                                                               SH. KANWALJEET SINGH,  MEMBER:

1.                The brief facts of the complaint is that  complainant has purchased the combine Harvestor from the OP on 9/2/2016 vide bill no.364 bearing Engine No.FGHM433489 and Chassis No.B2K1600012 for an amount of Rs.16,05,500/-. The Bill was duly issued to the complainant by the OP and delivered to him on 09/2/2016 which is also countersigned by the complainant.  After the purchase of the said combine, complainant had taken the same to his village and thereafter he used the said combine harvestor for reaping the crops of his customers. During the harvesting of crops by the complainant, it was found that the said combine harvestor did not work well and in proper manner. As a result of which so many customers of the complainant who had asked the complainant for harvesting their crops with the said combine picked up quarrels with the complainant for the loss caused to their crops. Complainant had to pay the loss of his customers to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- from his own pocket.

2.                The complainant approached and contacted the OP to bring the fault in the combine. The complainant also made several phone calls to the office of the OP. Thereafter the said combine harvestor was taken by the OP to their office at Nabha and the mechanics tried their best to repair the combine harvestor to set it right and the combine harvestor was then brought back by the complainant to his native place and again started operating the combine harvestor but it was found that defect was not removed. Complainant telephonically contacted with the OP and then a foreman was sent by the OP to the village of the complainant who tried his best to remove the defect in the combine but all in vain.  Complaint seeing no other alternative then got issued a legal notice to the Op on 26/9/2016. The complainant has already paid the full sale consideration of the said combine except  an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- which the complainant is ready to pay provided that  defect  in the combine is  totally removed. The loss suffered by the complainant due to the faulty functioning of the combine is paid by the OP and in case the combine harvestor is not set right to the satisfaction of the complainant, the same  be replaced by issuing him a new combine harvestor.  The OP is guilty  of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The cause of action accrued to the complainant about 15 days after 9/2/2016 i.e.  date of purchase of the combine harvestor when it did not work properly. It is therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and Ops be directed to remove the defect in the combine harvestor to set it in proper working condition and to pay an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of loss suffered  by the complainant due to faulty working of the combine and to replace the present Combine Harvestor with a new combine harvestor in full working condition. It is further prayed  that Rs.2,00,00/- be also awarded as compensation due to the physical and mental harassment to the complainant.

3.                Upon notice OP appeared through his counsel and filed his written version. In reply opposite party raised certain preliminary objections that complainant is a defaulter and is in arrears of Rs.1,80,000/-. On 09/02/2016, the machine was delivered vide bill no.364 duly signed by the complainant admitting the balance of Rs.6,55,000/- as Rs.10,00,000/- was paid  uptill 09.02.2016. Thereafter, on 03/05/2016, the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt No.4 and on 13/7/2016 another sum of Rs.3,25,000/- was paid vide receipt no.52. A sum of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest is outstanding towards the complainant.  The allegations contained in the complaint are vague, uncertain and incomplete as they do not meet the statutory requirement of particular occasion. No specific date, month and year has been specified along with the details of the farmers in whose fields the alleged problem has occurred. Therefore, on this short  ground alone, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.  

4.                OP has never refused to attend any complaint of any customer including the complainant.  Even  if the service is required to be done , the OP is ready and  willing to do so at its premises. On merits  no fault or disservice can be  attributed to the OP. Therefore, the complainant has got no cause of action to file this complaint. The Opposite party is still ready to do the service of the machine in question irrespective of the expiry of Guarantee/ warrantee, the terms and conditions settled between the parties as detailed in the bill issued to the complainant. With the submissions of the reply, the OP prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.

5.                Ld. Counsel with complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, Ex.CB affidavit of Sh. Gurdev Gir of village Sawai Singh Wala alongwith documents Exs.C-1 copy of bill dt.9/2/2016, Ex.C-2 & Ex.C-12 copies of written compromise, Ex.C-13  copy of temporary certificate of registration, Ex.C-14 copy of form 22, Ex.C-15 copy of sale certificate,  Ex.C-16 copy of insurance Ex/C-17 & Ex.C-18 copies of receipts, Ex.C-19 copy of debit/ credit note, Ex.C-20 copy of delivery challan, Ex.C-21 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-22 postal receipt and  closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand ld. Counsel for OP has tendered Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh. Santokh Singh partner of M/s Hira Agro along with documents Ex.OP-1 copy of  bill, Ex.OP-2 copy of receipt dt.3/5/2016, Ex.OP-3 copy of receipt dt.13/7/2016, Ex.OP-4 copy of ledger account of the complainant, Ex.OP-5 copy of legal notice, Ex.OP-6 & Ex.OP-7 copies of postal receipts, Ex.OP-8 copy of  suit for recovery and closed the evidence of the Opposite party.

7.                We have gone through the case file very carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.

8.                During arguments the contention of both the counsels are similar to their respective pleadings. So no need to reiterate the same. Further, it is admitted by both the parties that a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- is outstanding towards the complainant as per Para  No.9 of the complaint and in para No.1 of the preliminary Objections at page 2 of the opening line of written reply filed by the OP.

9.                Now coming to main controversy that “whether there is any manufacturing defect in the Harvestor combine or not? Complainant in  order to prove his case from Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-12 produced the documents regarding “Rajinama” between some persons of M.P. and Haryana that they have suffered huge loss of crop due to the major defect in the said Combine Harvestor. We have observed these documents from Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 are not on oath by way of affidavit by the deponent. More over not signed by the complainant on the same. From this angle documents are not believable to prove the case  of the complainant.

10.              Onus of proof is on the complainant that there is a major defect in the Combine harvestor.  Neither any expert report nor any sufficient documentary evidence has been produced by the complainant regarding the manufacturing defect in the Combine harvestor in question.

11.              Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OP to remove the defect if any in the Combine Harvestor by replacing the defective part of the machine with a new one free of cost after clearance of the outstanding amount by the complainant to the OP. Further, OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation within a period of 30 days. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Announced                                                                                                                                                                                    Dated: 20/09/2018

Kanwaljeet Singh                    Neelam Gupta

  Member                              Member