BEFORE

    District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,

  Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura 

 

                    Case No. 01/CC/KMP of 2021

 

Sri. BIKASH MAJUMDER

          S/O Lt. Birendra Majumder,

Village:- East Fulchari, P.S. & P.O.:- Kamalpur,

District:- Dhalai, Tripura 799285..........………Complainant.

                                   

V/S

M/s. JASHODA AGRO WORKS,

KHARAKUVA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION 

SOJITRA, DISTRICT- ANAND

STATE- GUJARAT PIN-387240

Phone No-02697-234993

Mobile No-9426394460

Email id- jashodaagroworks@ gmail.com… Opposite Party.

 

                                        Present

                  SRI. S. D. SINGH.......... President,

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

 

       1.  SRI. HIRALAL DEBBARMA………Member

       2.  SMT. DIPALI SINHA..........................Member

 

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kamalpur, District:- Dhalai, Tripura

 

LD. C O U N S E L S 

For the Complainant       : Ld. Advocate Smt. Lipi kar.

For the Opposite Party    : None Represented for Opposite Party.                                              

 

Date of argument: 04/07/2022        

Date of judgment: 04/08/2022     

 

 

J U D G M E N T

 

1.     A Complaint Preferred by Sri. Bikash Majumder S/O Lt. Birendra Majumder, Village:- East Fulchari, PO & PS:- Kamalpur, District:-Dhalai, Tripura against  M/s. Jashoda Agro Works, Kharakuva Near Railway Station, Sojitra, District:- Anand, Gujarat, Pin:- 387240  under Section 12 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for Compensation of money to the tune of Rs. 9,98,400/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred) Only as the Rice Planter Machine was not functional/non-operational since its purchase and delivery.    

     The complainant has submitted all relevant documents in Support of his claim. The O.P. has been evading reply and remained absent in all the hearings since the first hearing held on 25/03/2021.Though the summon has been delivered to O.P. address and delivery has been confirmed on 10/03/2021 at 10:58:25 

 

 2.    The brief facts of the Complainant case is that he is a permanent resident of Village- East Fulchari, P.O. & P.S.– Kamalpur, District- Dhalai, Tripura, Pin- 799285. On 25/05/2018, the complainant purchased a Rice Planter Machine from the O.P. i. e. M/s. Jashodha Agro Works having office at  Kharakuva, near Railway Station, Sojitra, Dist- Anand, Gujarat by paying a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only. The said price of Rice planter Machine amounting to Rs. 8,60,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only was remitted through RTGS on different date from Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch to the M/s. Jashoda Agro works. After receiving the said rice planter machine, the complainant found the machine as defective and requested the Company to return back the same but M/s.  Jashoda Agro Works did not pay heed to his request and refused to take back the said rice planter machine. Having no option, the complainant sent a Legal notice on 13/07/2020 to the O.P., but the O.P. remained unresponded. 

 

3.    It is further case of the complainant that Company received Rs.8,60,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only for the Price of said rice planter machine but he provided Cash Memo (Invoice) for Rs.4,48,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand) only in respect of said Rice Planter Machine and did not give invoice of remaining amount of Rs.4,12,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand) only. 

 

4.     Lastly, it is contention of the complainant that the said defective machine could not be utilized for cultivation purpose and he sustained huge loss and as such he claimed a compensation of Rs.9,98,400/-(Rupees Nine Lakhs Ninety Eight Thousand Four Hundred) only including price of Rice Planter Machine.

 

5.         Points for Determination

i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer within the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

ii) Whether the Complaint is maintainable?

iii) Whether the Complainant entitled to compensation or relief or reliefs as prayed for ? If yes, to what extent ?

 

 6.        Point  No-1  is taken up for discussion and decision 

          Section 2(b) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 lays down that a complainant means a consumer.

          Further section 2(1) lays down that a consumer means a person who buys any goods for a consideration.

            In the instant consumer case, the complaint purchased the Rice Planter Machine from the O.P. and as such he is a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the point No.1 is decided accordingly. 

            

             Point No. 2 is taken up for discussion & decision.

  7.        Section 11 Of Consumer Protection Act,1986 read as follows:-

          Jurisdiction of the District Forum- 1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ( does not exceed Rupees Twenty Lakhs).

      2)  A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,-  

the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or (carries on business or has a branch office or) personally works for gain, or 

any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has a branch office), or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or have a branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or 

the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.

Further Section 24 A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Provides limitation period for filing Complaint. According to this Section complaint should be filed within 2 years of arising of cause of action.

         

       In the instant context, it is admitted facts that O.P. has an office at Kharkuva, Near Railway Station, Sojitra, Dist-Anand (Gujarat) which exclusively falls within the district of Anand, Gujarat, but if we look into Sub- Section-(c), of Section 11 of CP Act, 1986  it lay down about cause of action. In this instant complaint, it has been alleged that the complainant found the Rice Planter Machine defective since its purchase on 25/05/2018. Cause of  action is a bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the plaintiff. Cause of action not only refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded.   

         In Ganges ford Showroom V/S  Ranjan Kumar mishra, 2018 SCC Online NCDRC 1836, the Hon’ble apex Court held us Under:- “In the absence of territorial Jurisdiction of the District Forum, where a complaint is instituted, still a complaint can be entertained if the Cause of action partly or fully arose therein”.   

       Further in Writ Petition(Civil) 03/2020 dt. 26/03/2020, the Hon’ble apex Suo-Moto extended the period of limitation due to out break of Covid-19. Hence, after considering the aforesaid facts and Solemn observation of Hon’ble apex Court, it appears from the record that Cause of action arose within the Jurisdiction of Dhalai District where the Rice Planter Machine found defective after its purchase on 25/05/2018 and this Complaint has been instituted  within the limitation period of 2 years and this forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

Accordingly Point No-2 is decided in favour of Complainant.

 

8.      Point No. 3 is taken up for discussion & decision.

           The complainant submitted evidence by affidavit, examined himself as PW 1 & also submitted the documents in support of the claim and adduced documents which has been duly exhibited. These are following exhibited documents. 

(I)     Photocopy of Aadhaar Card, Exhibit-1.   

(II)    Original copy of Cash Memo of Rice Planter Machine, Exhibit- 2.

(III) Original copy of Bank Statement of Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch Exhibit-3.

(IV)   Cash Memo of M/s..Tarat Electric in respect of purchasing EXIDE BATTERY (FEGO-Gold 65 R AUBOA037860 4 BOU), Exhibit-4.

(V)    Photocopy of Voter I.D. CARD, Exhibit-5.

       The Ld. Counsel of the complainant Ld. Advocate Lipi Kar submitted written argument and we have perused the said written argument and also heard her on behalf of the complainant.

        It is evident from the records that notice had been sent to the OP  M/s. Jashoda Agro Works & it also appear from the tracking report that item delivered to OP on 10/03/2021. Despite receiving notice O.P- M/s. Jashoda Agro Works did not turn up before the forum to contest the case and therefore the case has been proceeded ex- parte against the O.P.

      From the evidence adduced by the complainant, it is evident that the complainant is a customer of  M/s. Jashoda Agro Works Ltd. And he had purchased Rice Planter Machine by remitting the  consideration Price of Rs.8,60,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only through RTGS (Tripura Gramin Bank, Kamalpur Branch) on different dates   which was duly received by O.P. 

 The following are payment schedule (Exhibit-3):- 

I. Rs. 5,00000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs ) dt-30/04/2018.

II. Rs. 200000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs) dt- 11/05/2018.

III.  Rs. 1,60,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Sixty Thousand) dt-18/05/2018.

       In return, O.P only issued invoice of amounting to Rs.4,48,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand) including GST of Rs.48,000/-(Rupees Forty Eight Thousand) vide Bill No-112 dt-25/05/2018 (Exhibit-2)  and from this exhibit it has been proved that complainant deposited Rs.8,60,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) & get  only invoice of Rs. 4,48,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand)only.

       It has also reflected from the record that complainant approached O.P through phone as well as through letter  dt.13/07/2020 but O.P did not pay heed to his request. Through the said letter, the complainant. demanded from O.P to return the said remaining unaccounted sum of Rs.4,12,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand) but all went in vain. Complainant also submitted invoice of M/s. Tarat Electric dt.08/06/2020 amounting to Rs.6,500/-(Six Thousand Five Hundreds) and invoice of  Iron Grill Industries dt.17/08/2018 amounting to Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) for having done mechanical works due to defects in Rice Planter Machine.       

      Now, from the evidence on record it has been proved that complainant in spite of receiving Rs.8,60,000/-(Rupees Eight Lakhs Sixty Thousand) only did not accounted for the  same and it has also been proved that he neglected in providing service to costumer.

       It is to mention here that this forum ordered for inspection of said Rice Planter Machine by Agriculture engineer and later on by the Ld. Members who inspected it and Ld. Members vide their report dt.01/04/2022 mentioned that the said Rice Planter Machine was lying out of Order/Non-functional condition. They also submitted coloured photograph of the said Machine. 

        From the above discussion, it has been proved that complainant purchased Rice Planter Machine which found to be defective and he had to spent for batteries and Mechanical Works, the complainant approached the O.P. for return of excess amount as well replacement of said item but all went  in vain and ultimately approached this forum for redressal of his grievances. 

       I would further like to mention here that by not providing invoice of remaining amount of Rs.4,12,000/- (four lakhs twelve thousand ) only leads to unfair trade practices according to section 2(r)of CP Act,1986.

          We do not find any reason why the O.P. did not give invoice of remaining amount of Rs 4,12,000/-(four lakhs twelve thousand)only inspite of receiving total amount of Rs 8,60,000/-.Therefore, we hold that O.P. has demonstrated a gesture of deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practice for which the complainant has suffered harassment and huge  monetary loss. 

        In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record we are of the opinion that the complainant has been able to prove his case against O.P.

Moreover, all the allegation made by complainant are unchallenged, though the O.P. got enough opportunity to contest the case and to refute it by appearing before this forum. Therefore, there are no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the bonafide customer/complainant.

    Thus, from the above facts and circumstances and above analysis the unanimous decision of the forum is that complainant is entitled to get a reliefs as prayed for.

       In the result the case succeeds.

 

       Accordingly, 

                           It is  

                                                   ORDERED 

       that the consumer complaint bearing no CC/01/2021 is hereby allowed Ex-Parte against the O.P.

       The O.P M/s. Jashoda Agro Works  is hereby directed to replace the said Rice Planter Machine or refund the said amount of Rs 4,48,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand)only. Apart from this O.P. is hereby further directed  to refund Rs.4,12,000/-(Rupees Four Lakhs Twelve Thousand) with an interest of 9% Per annum within 2 months of this Order. 

       Further O.P. is directed to pay the complainant a sum of  Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand) only as a compensation alongwith litigation cost of as 10,000/-  Rupees Ten Thousand) only within 2 month of this Order.

      In default the complainant may put the order under execution by filing an Execution Application as per provision of the CP Act,1986 and rules made thereunder.

      Let a free copy of order be provided to the parties.

 

 

(DIPALI SINHA)              (H.L. DEBBARMA)                  (S. DEO SINGH)

  Member                                   Member                                    President