Punjab

Sangrur

CC/186/2015

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S.Agrotech - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Ratol

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    186

                                                Instituted on:      07.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       07.09.2015

 

 

 

 

Gurcharan Singh Sidhu son of Dr. Kehar Singh Sidhu, R/o Dr. Kehar Singh Marg, Bye Pass, Kotkapura Road, Mukatsar, Tehsil and District Mukatsar.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     K.S. Agrotech (Regd) through its partner-Manager, Raikot Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur 48 023.

2.     V.S.T. Tillers Ltd. through its Director/MD, Regd. Office and Factory, while Filed Road, Mahadevpura, Bangalore 560048.

3.     State of Punjab through District Collector cum Deputy Commissioner, Shri Mukatsar Sahib.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

 

For the complainant            :               Shri S.S.Ratol, Adv.

For Opposite party No.1     :               Shri S.M.Goyal, Adv.

For Opposite party No.2     :               Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.

For Opposite party No.3     :               Shri Abhijeet Singh.

 

 

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Gurcharan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) had earlier filed this complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mukatsar Sahib under complaint number 144 of 2010 on 31.5.2010, which was decided on 21.12.2010, as the President had dismissed the complaint whereas both the Members had accepted the complaint. Opposite party number 1 filed FA number 163 of 2011 whereas the complainant Gurcharan Singh Sidhu filed FA number 192 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Punjab State Commission and in both the appeals, the Hon’ble State Commission passed the following order on 13.01.2014:

“The appeal i.e. FA number 163 of 2011 filed by the appellant/opposite party is hereby allowed. The order passed by the President District Forum is hereby affirmed and the order passed by the two members of the District Forum is set aside, with a liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint after impleading the manufacturer as a necessary party.”

 

2.               Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint number CC/38/14 on 18.3.2014, which was decided on 3.11.2014 and the following order was passed by the District Consumer Forum, Mukatsar Sahib:-

“      In view of the above discussion this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. In these circumstances, the complaint deserves to be returned to the complainant. Office is directed to return the complaint (CC No.38/2014) to the complainant or his counsel along with his documents. The office is also directed to endorse date of institution and date of return on the complaint. Complaint returned to the complainant.”

 

3.             Briefly stating, the complainant had taken 20 acres of land on lease at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per acre per year from one Hardev Singh son of Gurbaksh Singh, Surinder Kaur W/o Bhupinder Singh, resident of Village Sanghudhon on 2.4.2009 and 15.4.2009, respectively.  It is further averred in the complaint that the manager/partner of OP number 1 visited the complainant and told regarding the best quality of paddy Transplanter  22T-238-8 Riding type of VST Tillers which was manufactured by OP number 2. The complainant paid Rs.5000/- to OP number 1 vide demand draft dated 14.5.2009 in favour of OP number 1 and the complainant also submitted an application to the Agriculture Department for subsidy.  It is further averred that the remaining amount of said paddy transplanter was paid by the complainant to OP number 1 on 1.6.2009 vide invoice number 0086 dated 1.6.2009. It is further averred that in the land in question the complainant had sown paddy crop (paniri) as per the direction of the OP number 1 in the season 2009, but the grievance of the complainant is that the said transplanter did not plant the paddy effectively. It is further stated that when the paddy was sown by the paddy transplanter, it was found that the paddy was sown by the transplanter at a considerable gap more than normal totally opposite to the assurance of the OP and as per the terms and conditions of the Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana.  It is further stated that the paddy transplanter did not work properly as there was manufacturing/technical defect in the same, as such, the complainant complained to the OP number 1 and the mechanic of the OP visited the fields of the complainant,  but failed to sow the paddy crop as per the terms and conditions.  It has been stated further in the complaint that the paddy transplanter supplied to the complainant was having manufacturing defect, which could not be removed in any way. It is further stated that the OP took a long time for removal of the defect in the paddy transplanter, so the complainant suffered huge loss. The complainant also moved an application to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mukatsar, who appointed Shri Bikker Singh ADO and Shri Pakhar Singh ALO to inspect the fields of the complainant and also gave a report regarding the loss suffered by the complainant on the direction of the Chief Agriculture Officer and further they inspected the fields of the complainant on 7.7.2009 in the presence of Satpal Singh, Sukhdeep Singh residents of Bhullar and made a report and  in the report, the paddy crop of the complainant has been shown damaged to the extent of 90% due to defect in the paddy transplanter.  It is further averred that due to the said reason, the complainant failed to sow his paddy crop in the proper time and complainant sown his paddy crop very late. It is further stated that due to this reason, the complainant suffered huge loss and had to purchase again the ‘paniri of paddy’ for Rs.90000/- and also suffered a loss of Rs.30,000/- for re-plantation of the paddy on account of labour. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.1,69,500/- i.e. Rs.84,750/- as price of the paddy transplanter and Rs.84,750/- as government subsidy paid to the OP number 1 along with interest and further to pay Rs.5,50,000/- as agriculture loss and further claimed Rs.90,000/- on account of cost of paniri and Rs.30000/- as cost of labour for planting the paniri from the labour and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

4.             In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, that the present complaint was bad for non joinder of the necessary party as OP number 1 had purchased the paddy transplanter machine from OP number 2 and sold the same to the complainant in the same sealed and packed condition.  The complainant had got subsidy from the Agriculture Department, who has not impleaded a party in the present complaint.  It is stated that the liability, if any to pay the compensation is of OP number 2. It is further stated that no amount has been received by Op from the complainant at Sri Mukatsar Sahib nor any bill/invoice was issued at Sri Mukatsar Sahib. On merits, it has been specifically denied that the complainant had taken land of 20 acres on lease. It is stated further that the product in question was shown in exhibition held at Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana and order in this regard was given by the complainant at Ludhiana whereas the delivery of the product was given to the complainant at Malerkotla.  It is further stated that the complainant had obtained subsidy of half amount of product from the Agriculture Department as per Punjab Govt. policy. It has been stated further that there can be defect in sowing the paddy. Other reasons for the improper result can be weather problem i.e. excessive heat, bad soil, monsoon delay, improper seed or paniri of paddy. It is further stated in the reply that the machine in question was duly approved by the Farm Machinery Testing Centre, Department of Farm Power and Machinery, PAU Ludhiana. It is stated that the story mentioned in the complaint is wrong, false and without any basis. However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 has been denied.

 

5.             In reply filed by OP number 2, some preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form and that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP.  The present complaint has been filed just to grab money from the OP with a malafide intention.  This forum has got no jurisdiction to try and hear the present complaint.  The paddy transplanter in question was purchased in an exhibition held at Ludhiana and thereafter the delivery of the product was given at Malerkotla. It is further stated that the product in question was imported from China made by the company M/s. Yanji Rice Transplanter Factory, No.89, Chang Bai Road, Yanji City, Jilin Province, China.  The product in question was tested in the department of Farm Power and Machinery, Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana and Kerala Agriculture University, Agriculture Research Station, Mannuthy. It has been further stated that since 1996 approximately 4000 pieces of product in question have been sold by the OP in India. It is further stated that the complainant had already obtained subsidy of half amount of product from Agriculture Department as per the Punjab Government policy. It is further stated that the complainant had not impleaded concerned Agriculture Department as a party in the complaint from whom the complainant had obtained subsidy which was very much necessary and proper party to the present complaint. Less yield of paddy crop might be due to many reasons, such as wrong time of plantation, weather condition, quality of seed, mode of transplantation etc.  It has been denied that the complainant had taken 20 acres of land on lease and the story mentioned in the complaint is said to be wrong and illegal. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.  It is stated further that proper service was given to the complainant.  It is further stated that the complaint is barred by time.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 2 has been denied.

 

6.             In reply filed by OP number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP, that the complaint is bad for mis joinder of the parties, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, the allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-2 copy of receipt dated 2.4.2009, Ex.C-3 copy of receipt dated 15.4.2009, Ex.C-4 copy of tribune newspaper, Ex.C-5 copy of bill dated 1.6.2009, Ex.C-6 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of application dated 14.5.2009, Ex.C-8 copy of DD of Rs.5000/-, Ex.C-9 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-10 copy of application, Ex.C-11 copy of report by Agriculture Department, Ex.C-12 copy of report of agriculture department, Ex.C-13 affidavit of Chamkaur Singh, Ex.C-14 affidavit of BS Bhullar, Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-17 copies of certificates, Ex.C-18 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/3 copies of letters, Ex.OP1/4 copy of pamphlet, Ex.OP1/5 copy of letter, Ex.OP1/6 to Ex.OP1/8 copies of bills, Ex.OP1/9 to Ex.OP1/10 copies of letters, Ex.OP1/11 copy of order dated 13.1.2014, Ex.OP1/12 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 copy of operator instructions book, Ex.OP2/2 copy of operation ponnamutha 300/5, Ex.OP2/3 copy of letter, Ex.OP2/4 copy of satisfaction letter, Ex.OP2/5 copy of satisfaction letter of complainant, Ex.OP2/6 copy of cutting of newspaper, Ex.OP2/9 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

8.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

9.             The complainant has filed the present complaint as per the directions of the Hon’ble State Commission vide orders dated 13.1.2014 passed in First appeal number 163 of 2011, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP1/11, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission has held that the order passed by the District Forum has been affirmed and the order passed by two members of the District Forum has been set aside, with a liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint after impleading the  manufacturer as a necessary party. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is within limitation.

 

10.            First of all, it is worth mentioning here that the complainant had purchased the paddy transplanter from OP number 1, which is doing its business at Malerkotla within the territorial jurisdiction of District Sangrur.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint of the complainant is fully maintainable before this Forum and this Forum has the territorial jurisdiction to hear and decide the present complaint. 

 

11.            In the present case, the complainant took 20 acres of land on lease from Shri Hardev Singh son of Shri Gurbakhsh Singh and from Surinder Kaur on 2.4.2009 and 15.4.2009, respectively, as is evident from the copies of receipts of lease amount Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-1 are the copies of the jamabandi on record.  It is further on record that the complainant purchased one paddy transplanter from OP number 1 to sow the paddy (paniri) from OP number 1, but the grievance of the complainant is that the said paddy transplanter supplied by OP number 1 was defective one and due to that the paddy was not transplanted properly as per the guidance of the Punjab Agriculture University Ludhiana. Further case of the complainant is that though the complainant requested the OP number 1 to set right the paddy transplanter machine, as such, the OP number 1 deputed mechanic to repair the same, but he failed to set right the same, as a result of which the complainant was compelled to purchase again the paddy (paniri) for Rs.90,000/- and further to spend an amount of Rs.30,000/- for transplantation of the same.  The complainant in support of his contention has also produced an affidavit on record as Ex.CW1/A narrating the whole of the story as mentioned in the complaint.  In support of his version, the complainant has also placed on record the copy of newspaper clipping of Hindustan Times, Ex.C-4 of that period, which is also corroborating the version of the complainant that the crop of the complainant has been destroyed.                

 

12.            On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 have vehemently contended that the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and without any basis. It is further contended by the learned counsel for OP number 1 and 2 that at the sale of the paddy transplanter, the employees of OPs number 1 and 2 gave instructions regarding use of paddy transplanter in question and also provided ‘Operators instructions book’ and one brusher ‘Yanji Shakti 8 Row Paddy Transplanter” alongwith one CD regarding use of the product in question.  It is contended further by the learned counsel for OPs number 1 and 2 that the complainant failed to sow the paddy crop as per the instructions prescribed and further it has been denied that the paddy was sown by the paddy transplanter at a considerable gap more than normal.  Ex.C-10 is the copy of application dated 6.7.2009 submitted by the complainant to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mukatsar requesting for visiting his fields to see the position of the paddy crop and to make report thereof.   On the application of the complainant, the Chief Agriculture Officer appointed Shri Bikker Singh, Agriculture Development Officer and Pakhar Singh, for making the report.  Ex.C-12 is the copy of report submitted by the above said officials to the Chief Agriculture Officer, Mukatsar and a bare perusal of the report shows on 7.7.2009, Shri Bikker Singh and Shri Pakhar Singh visited the fields of the complainant, where Satpal Singh and Sukhdeep Singh, labourers were present and found that 20 acres of land of the complainant was sown with the paddy transplanter machine and further found that 90% crop was dry. It is further stated in the report that the complainant and his labourers told them they have not used any fertilizer or pesticides in the land in question.  It is further written in the report that there was root injury in every plant, which seems to be due to technical defect in the machine in question.  Ex.C-13 is the affidavit of Shri Chamkaur Singh son of Shri Daler Singh, resident of Vilalge Sanghudhoan, District Mukatsar to show that the complainant had purchased the paddy paniri for Rs.90,000/- .  Further the complainant has also produced on record the affidavit of Shri Balwant Singh Bhullar, who is a qualified certificate holder in Agriculture Machinery and Equipment from Tractor Training and Testing Station Budhni (M), wherein he has clearly mentioned that he had checked the paddy transplanter of the complainant in the month of July, 2009 and had found that the same was not planting the paddy plants in the fields effectively as per recommendations of the university and further found that there is manufacturing defect in the same.  Ex.C-15, Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 are the copies of the certificates of Shri B.S.Bhullar, expert mechanic. In the circumstances, we feel that the complainant has successfully proved on record that the OP number 1 supplied to the complainant a defective paddy transplanter, due to which he suffered huge loss of re-transplantation of the paddy (paniri) again and spent an amount of Rs.90,000/- on purchase of paddy (Paniri) and further spent Rs.30,000/- on account of labour for transplanting the same manually.   The OPs  has placed on record the documents Ex.OP2/3, Ex.OP2/6 and Ex.OP2/7 in support of its version, but on the perusal of the documents, we find that the same pertain to the year 2012, whereas the complainant had purchased the paddy transplanter in the year 2009 and over the years, there might have been some improvements in the machine, whereas the expert report produced by the complainant pertains to the relevant period only.

13.            It is also on record that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.84,750/- to OP number 1 and further an amount of Rs.84,750/- was paid by the Agriculture Department in lieu of 50% subsidy of the cost of the paddy transplanter.  In the circumstances, we find it to be a case of supply of defective paddy transplanter by the OP number 1 to the complainant.  In the present complaint, the complainant has been persuing his complaint since 31.5.2010 for the redressal of his grievance and for this he has been moving from one Forum to another and as a result of which, he has spent a huge amount and has undergone a lot of mental tension and agony.  In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rameshwari Devi and others versus Nirmla Devi and others, Civil Appeal Nos. 4912-13 of 2011, decided on 4.7.2011 has observed that while imposing the costs we have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts. We have to also broadly take into consideration the prevalent fee structure of the lawyers and other miscellaneous expenses which have to be incurred towards drafting and filing of the counter affidavit, miscellaneous charges towards typing, photocopying, court fee etc.

 

14.            In view of our above discussion and circumstances of the case, we allow the complaint and direct OPs number 1 and 2 to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.84,750/- and further an amount of Rs.84,750/- to the Agriculture Department (from where an amount of Rs.84,750/- was received on account of subsidy of the paddy transplanter) subject to returning of the paddy transplanter machine by the complainant to OP number 1 and 2.  OP number 1 and 2 are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- on account of paddy (paneeri) and labour charges for re transplantation of the paddy and an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

15.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 7, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member