Haryana

Karnal

CC/112/2023

Gurmesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kartar Agro Industries Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Sharma

04 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 112 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.14.02.2023

                                                        Date of Decision:04.04.2024

 

Gurmesh son of Shri Hukam Singh, resident of VPO Jani, District Karnal. Aadhar no.751650814153. Mobile no.9896367090.

 

                                                                         …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Kartar Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Chairman, Amloh road Bhadson, Punjab.
2. M/s Krishna Combine Industries through its proprietor/partner/owner 627, Sector-4, Transport Nagar, G.T. Road Karnal.
3. M/s Kamboj Power Generator Service, through its Manager/Proprietor, Head office Vasant Vihar near ITI Chowk, Karnal and workshop at plot no.517, sector-25, Part-II, HUDA opposite NFL Township, Panipat.

 

……..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before     Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.    

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

                Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Sh. Davinder Sharma, counsel for the

    complainant.

    Opposite parties exparte.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had purchased a Harvester/combine Machine for his livelihood as well as his family members. The complainant registered the said machine with the Registration Authority at Karnal and Registration Authority Karnal issued the registration no.HR-05BE-3434 of the said Harvester/combine machine.  OP no.1 is the manufacturer of the said machine and OP no.2 is the authorized dealer of OP no.1 from where the complainant had purchased the combine machine on 15.02.2021 after paying the consideration of approximately Rs.24.00 lakhs. Complainant had obtained the loan of Rs.12 lakhs from M/s Shree Ram Finance Company Ltd. for purchasing the said combine machine. At the time of purchasing the same, OP no.2 has given the assurance to the complainant regarding the quality and durability of the harvester/combine machine and give warranty of five years and guaranty of two years. At the time of delivery of the combine machine, the colour and stickers were defective. The complainant refused to accept the delivery of the combine machine but OP no.2 advised the complainant to use the combine machine for wheat season and after the expiry of the wheat season, he will repaint the combine machine with original paints and change the entire sticker. At the time of delivery of the combine machine, the complainant made the video for the same on his own mobile phone.

2.             It is further alleged that after the expiry of the wheat crop season, complainant visited the agency of OP no.2 several times and requested to change the sticker and repaint of the combine machine but OP no.2 always postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, in the wheat crop season for the year 2022, the engine of the said machine became defective, then complainant visited the OP no.2 and told about the defect in the engine of combine machine, then OP no.2 told him to register his complaint on the toll free number of the company. The complainant lodged the complaint on toll free number of OP no.1 but nobody came present to solve the problem of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant contacted Mr. Teja through his mobile, who is the owner of authorized service station of OPs no.1 and 2. On 03.10.2022 Mr. Teja Singh sent a man namely Dilbagh Singh to check the combine machine of complainant, who checked the combine machine and told that the engine of the said machine became defective and he made the service of the combine machine. At that time the service of machine was free but he charged the amount for the service, parts and oil etc. from the complainant. After making the service, the combine machine remained in working upto 10-12 October, 2022 and after that the engine of said combine machine had thrown out the entire engine oil and shown back pressure indication on the meter and engine became heat up. Then complainant again approached the OPs and complaint about the same. OP no.3 sent Mr. Dilbagh Singh to check the machine. Mr. Dilbagh Singh opened the engine of the combine machine and took the entire part of the engine at the garage of OP no.3 and OP no.3 change the some parts of engine and charged for the same. OP no.3 has not issued any bill for the change of parts of the engine. The old parts of the engine are still remained with the complainant. After some time the defect again arise in the engine of combine machine. The complainant again approached the OPs and told regarding the defect in the engine and also made a request for the change/replace of the harvester/combine machine or its engine or refund the cost of the machine because the same is still under the guaranty/warranty period but OPs flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant. The combine machine purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect from the first day of its purchase and the same was not replaced by the OP no.2 inspite of repeated request of complainant. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered huge financial loss because most of the time the combine machine remained on stands by mode due to the defect in the engine. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated  25.07.2023 of the Commission. OP no.2 also did not appear before the Commission despite service, and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 13.06.2023 of the Commission.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of RC Ex.C1, copy of delivery order Ex.C2, copy of cash memo dated 03.10.2022 Ex.C3, copy of cash memo dated 30.10.2022 Ex.C4 and Ex.C5, copy of service report dated 30.10.2022 Ex.C6, photographs Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant purchased a harvester/combine machine from the OP no.2, for the consideration of Rs.24,00,000/- with five years warranty and two years guarantee. Op no.1 is the manufacturer of the said machine. The said machine has become defective during the warranty/guaranty period. Complainant made several complaints to OPs to rectify the defect but despite their best efforts OPs have failed to rectify the defect from the combine machine and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

6.             Complainant has alleged that at the time of delivery of the harvester/combine machine, the colour and stickers were defective and after the wheat crop season for the year 2023 the engine of the combine machine became defective. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No expert report with regard to defect in the combine machine has been placed on file by the complainant. Moreover, it is not possible to take the delivery of combine machine, if the colour and stickers were defective one. Complainant relied upon the photographs of combine machine as Ex.C7, the said photographs have been taken on 27.04.2022, whereas the combine machine in question was purchased by the complainant on 15.02.2021. Thus, it seems that scratches on the machine appeared in the photographs are accidental and not at the time of its purchase. Complainant has alleged that he has prepared the video on his mobile phone at the time of delivery of the combine machine but he has failed to produce the alleged video before the Commission to prove his version. Complainant has alleged that at the time of purchasing of said combine machine OPs have given the warranty of five years and guaranty of two years but he has not placed on file any warranty/guaranty card to prove his version.

7.             Thus, in view of the above discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merit and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:04.04.2024                                                                    

                                                                President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.      

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)    

                     Member                   Member