Complaint filed on: 16-08-2016 Disposed on: 22-02-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM
OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101
CC.No.114/2016
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
PRESENT
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT
SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
B.S.Palakshaiah,
S/o. Siddappa, aged about
R/o. Beligere village, Kibbanahalli hobli, Tipaturu taluk,
Tumakuru district
(By Advocate Sri.Umesh)
V/s
Opposite party:-
Jayaram,
The Proprietor,
M/s. Jayaram Agri House, No.23, Gavi Anjineya complex,
Opp. Taluk Office, Sira town,
Tumakuru district
(By Advocate Sri.G.K.Ranganath)
ORDER
SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OP, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP to set-right the problems of the 4 H.P. Diesel Engine operated 4 stroke harvest reaper width about 3-4 feet, or delivery of new machine and to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000=00 with 18% interest per annum from the date of purchase of said machine till the realization, in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.
The complainant is an agriculturist and he is having agricultural land sy.no.12/P35 measuring 3-00 acres situated at Chowdlapura village, Tiptur taluk and he has raising Ragi Crop regularly every year.
The complainant submitted that, he and his family members are all depending upon the agriculture and subsequently, the complainant intend to purchase 4 HP diesel engine operated 4 stroke harvester reaper width about 3-4 feet from the OP on 23-9-2013. The said machine is valued for Rs.95,000=00. The Govt. of Karnataka paid subsidy amount of Rs.40,605=00 through Agriculture Department, Sira and remaining consideration amount, the complainant has paid Rs.49,000=00 and Rs.5,395=00 through DDs on 23-9-2013 in total Rs.54,395=00. On the same day, the OP has received necessary documents and delivered the said machine to the complainant on 28-9-2013 vide delivery note No.22 and warranty to the said machine.
The complainant further submitted that, as per the instruction and advice of the OP, the complainant has utilized the said machine for agriculture operation for harvesting ragi crop through the said machine. It is alleged that the said machine is not working properly and the OP has delivered the defective machine to the complainant. In this regard, the complainant has approached the OP and requested to set-right the problem and also demanded to exchange the machine. But till date, the OP dodged the matter on one pretext for the other and has not set-right the problem of the machine and also refused to exchange the another new machine to the complainant.
The complainant further submitted that, the complainant has borrowed the loan amount from others and paid the amount of Rs.54,395=00 to the OP, but the OP has intentionally supplied the defective machine to the complainant. Hence it is the intentional negligence of the OP. It is the legal duty of the OP to replace the said machine or delivery of new machine as per the warranty. Hence, there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the OP. It is alleged that, due to this the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony. On 8-7-2016, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the OP and the OP has replied to the said notice. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.
3. After service of notice, the OP has appeared through his counsel and filed objection contending interalia as under:
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it is liable to be dismissed in limine.
The OP further submitted that, the averments made in the complaint are false and denied and is not within the knowledge of this OP.
The OP further submitted that, the present complaint is barred by limitation as it is filed after lapse of two years eight months.
In fact, the complainant voluntarily approached the OP to purchase the harvest machine, after due verification and inspection of the said machine, the complainant has purchased the said machine and operated the machine for harvesting the crops and it was good condition and also working well. The complainant himself had several times told that, the said machine is very good and earned lot of profit out of the machinery and derived good income from doing harvesting work of others apart from his own work. When the complainant approached the OP regular service as advised at the time of delivery of machine, there was no complaint absolutely.
The OP further submitted that, after purchasing the said machine, the complainant has earned good income from the said machine after lapse of two years eight months; the complainant has raised bad voice stating that the said machine is not working properly and that it is a defective machine. The complainant has not specifically stated what the defect is in the machine and not properly explained in his complaint. The complainant has not followed the guidelines issued by the OP and not handled the machine properly and not taken proper service without doing so, the complainant has made false allegations. There is no iota of truth in the complaint. The OP has very good reputation in his business and fame, just to on the ill advice of the inimical persons of the OP, the complainant has filed the false complaint. As such in any angle the complaint is not maintainable.
The OP further submitted that, the OP has supplied the very good machine at the time of delivery of the said machine it is very good working condition and the OP has given very good service and there is no any fault on the OP’s side that. The OP alleged that, the complainant has suppressed all these facts and made false allegations against the OP. After lapse of 2 years 8 months of purchase, the question of exchange or giving new machine does not arise at all. The OP submitted that, if the complainant is need service for his defective, the complainant may take the service from the OP by paying the service charges. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant and OP have produced documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.
5. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.
1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?
6. Our findings on the above points are;
Point no.1: In the negative
Point no.2: As per the final order below.
REASONS
7. On perusal of the averments of complaint, affidavit evidence, objections of the OP and documents produced by both parties, it is an admitted fact that, on 23-09-2013 the complainant had purchased 4 HP diesel engine operated 4 stroke harvester reaper width about 3-4 feet from the OP by paying an amount of Rs.54,395=00. The Government of Karnataka has paid a sum of Rs.40,605=00 as subsidy amount to the OP. The total cost of the machine is of Rs.95,000=00. It is also an admitted fact that, the OP had delivered the above said machine to the complainant on 28-09-2013 and gave one year warranty to the said machine. To substantiate the above said facts, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and also produced delivery note No.22, dated 28-09-2013 and the amount mentioned as Rs.95,000=00. The complainant has also filed one general receipt No.191 dated 23-09-2013 the amount mentioned as Rs.54,395=00 issued by the OP. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, to disbelieve this evidence of complainant, there is no rebuttal evidence, therefore it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant.
8. The main contention of the complainant is that, the OP has supplied defective machine and the said machine is not working properly and he has approached the OP several times to set-right problem, but the OP has not set-right the problem in the said machine.
9. Per-contra, the OP submitted that, he had supplied the good working condition machine. The OP had given service and there is no fault from the OP’s side. The OP further submitted that, after lapse of two years eight months of purchase, the question of exchange or giving new machine does not arise at all. The OP submitted that, the complainant may take the service of the OP by paying the service charges.
10. On perusal of the documents produced by the OP, the above said machine is under warranty for one year and the warranty covers for one year from the date of purchase. The complainant had purchased the above said machine on 28-09-2013. The warranty period of the said machine is expired on 27-09-2014. The complainant alleged that, he has approached the OP on several times and requested him to set-right the problem. In this regard, the complainant has not specifically mentioned in his complaint or affidavit evidence, when the problem was started in the machine, except issuing a legal notice by complainant against the OP dated 8-7-2016 after lapse of one year 8 months. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence that, the complainant had approached the OP before expiry of warranty period. Moreover the complainant was also not mentioned the problem of the said machine. Only on the basis of mere allegation through affidavit, without any documentary evidence, we cannot come to conclusion that, there is a problem in the said machine under the warranty period. The complainant had used the machine for about one year 8 months and the warranty period has also been expired on 27-09-2014, if the machine was defective during the warranty period, this forum could have intervened in the issue. Since the warranty period is expired long-ago and the complainant had approached this forum after two years 8 months. Hence, we do not find any good ground to allow the complaint.
11. Further, the OP is ready to provide service to the complainant by taking service charges. Hence, we do not find any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP. So, under the circumstance, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove his case by placing convincing material evidence that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and also the complainant has not produced any expert or technical report. Accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 22th day of February 2017).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
