Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/278

Kuldip Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

KisanKraft Machine Tools Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswant Singh

18 Apr 2017

ORDER

        DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         278

Date of Institution :   29.09.2016

Date of Decision :     18.04.2017

Kuldeep Singh aged about 42 years, s/o Malkit Singh son of Bishan Singh r/o Aman Nagar, Near Saint Marry Convent School, Old Cantt Road, Faridkot, District Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Kisan Kraft Machine tools Pvt Ltd. Sri Huchhanna Tower, # 4, 1^st Main, 7A Cross, Maruthi Layout, Dasarahalli, H A F. Post Hebbal, Bangelore-560024 (Karnataka) India through its General Manager.
2. General and Allied Industries, G T Road Bypass, Karnal-132001 (Haryana) India through its Managing Director
3. Kisan Kraft Machine tools 69-A, Sudershanpura Industrial Area Jaipur-302006 (Rajasthan) India through its Managing Director.
4. Sandhawalia Equipments for Advance Farming Technology, back side Jublee Cinema, Faridkot through its proprietor Nirmal Singh Sandhawalia.

                                    .........OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh Jaswant Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh  Joginder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1 to 3,

 Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP-4.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to refund the cost of Diesel Inter-Cultivator 9HP and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs 15,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 7.06.2016,  complainant approached OP-4 for purchasing Kisankraft Diesel Inter-Cultivator 9HP for his paddy crop and deposited Rs.65,000/-and in turn, OP-4 issued receipt to him and also assured that said product would be delivered to complainant within 4-5 days. Thereafter, OP-4 transferred the amount of Rs.54,900/-in the account of OP-1 to 3, who contacted complainant and admitted the receipt of amount and also assured that said product would reach the complainant within 3-4 days, but till 25.06.2016, when complainant did not receive the said machine, he contacted Ops, who disclosed that it has been despatched through courier service and asked him to collect the same from there. After that complainant visited the office of Courier Services and there he found that product in question was badly damaged and was not in working condition, he immediately reported the matter to OP-4 and complained about the condition of said machine. Ops assured complainant that new product would be supplied to him shortly or his entire amount would be refunded, but they neither handed over the said machine to complainant nor returned his money. However, OP-4 has refunded Rs.10100/-received by him as him commission of dealership to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OP-1 to 3 to refund his entire amount but all in vain. All this act of OPs has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Ops to pay Rs. 1 lacs as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                                          The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 10.10.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                       On receipt of the notice, OP-1 to 3 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as complainant is not their consumer and they have no concern with him. However, on merits, OP-1 to 3 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that OP-4 is their authorized dealer and they received amount from him but denied that they have any contact with complainant. It is averred that machine in question was sent without any delay to complainant through Jaipur Golden Transport Company and not through courier services, but complainant or dealer never collected the same. Machine in question is still lying there and there is no defect in it except some scratches. It is further averred that when complainant has not used the same, how can he allege that it is not in working condition. It is further averred that product in question is not collected by complainant or their authorized dealer. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted and have been denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissed of complaint.

5                                         OP- 4 filed reply taking preliminary objection that no cause of actions arises against answering OP and on merits, OP-4 has denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect. However, OP-4 admitted in his written reply that complainant approached him for purchase of machine in question and paid Rs.65,000/-to him and in turn he also issued receipt in lieu of receiving the said payment. It is also admitted that OP-4 sent the said product, but denied if there was any defect in that. He further submitted that he refunded his share of commission i.e Rs.10100/- received through this dealership to complainant and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on his  part. It is further submitted that OP-1to 3 can redress the grievance of complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering OP.

6                                       Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                          Ld Counsel for OP1 to 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Manish Sharma as Ex OP-1 to 3/1 and documents Ex OP-1 to 3/2 to 4 and  then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP-1 to 3.

8                                                    We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have very carefully gone through the record and evidence produced by the parties on record.

 9                                            Ld Counsel for complainant vehemently argued that complainant approached OP-4 for purchase of Kisankraft Diesel Inter-Cultivator 9HP for his paddy crop and deposited Rs.65,000/- with OP-4 and in turn, OP-4 issued receipt to him and also assured that said product would be delivered to him within 4-5 days. Thereafter, OP-4 transferred the amount of Rs.54,900/-in the account of OP-1 to 3, who contacted complainant and admitted the receipt of amount and also assured that said product would reach the complainant within 3-4 days, but till 25.06.2016, when complainant did not receive the said machine, he contacted Ops, who disclosed that it has been despatched through courier service and asked him to collect the same from there. After that complainant visited the office of Courier Services and there he found that product in question was badly damaged and was not in working condition, he immediately reported the matter to OP-4 and complained about the condition of said machine. Ops assured complainant that new product would be supplied to him shortly or his entire amount would be refunded, but they neither handed over the said machine to complainant nor returned his money. However, OP-4 has refunded Rs.10100/-received by him as him commission of dealership to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OP-1 to 3 to refund his entire amount but all in vain. All this act of OPs has caused unnecessary harassment and mental agony to complainant and it amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the complaint.

10                                        To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 to 3 argued before the Forum that complaint filed by complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as complainant is not their consumer and they have no concern with him. They have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect, but admitted that OP-4 is their authorized dealer and they received amount from him but denied that they received any amount from complainant and asserted that they have not any contact with complainant. It is averred that machine in question was sent without any delay to complainant through Jaipur Golden Transport Company and not through courier services, but complainant or dealer never collected the same. Machine in question is still lying there and there is no defect in it except some scratches. It is further averred that when complainant has not used the same, how can he allege that it is not in working condition. It is further averred that product in question is not collected by complainant or their authorized dealer. All the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                                        Ld Counsel for OP- 4 argued that no cause of action arises against them and denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect. However, OP-4 admitted during arguments before the Forum that complainant approached him for purchase of machine in question and paid Rs.65,000/-to him and in turn he also issued receipt in lieu of receiving the said payment. It is also admitted that OP-4 sent the said product, but denied if there was any defect in that. He further submitted that he refunded his share of commission i.e Rs.10100/- received through this dealership to complainant and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on his  part. It is further submitted that OP-1 to 3 can redress the grievance of complainant and he has no role to play in it. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against OP-4.

12                                       The case of the complainant is that for the purpose of purchasing Kisankraft Diesel Inter-Cultivator 9HP for his paddy crop, he deposited Rs.65,000/ with OP-4, who issued receipt to him in lieu of payment received from him and also assured that said product would be delivered to him within 4-5 days. OP-4 transferred the amount of Rs.54,900/-in the account of OP-1 to 3, who also admitted the receipt of amount and assured that said product would reach the complainant within 3-4 days, but till 25.06.2016, when complainant did not receive the said machine, he contacted Ops, who disclosed that it has been despatched through courier service and asked him to collect the same from there. Complainant visited the office of Courier Services and there he found that product in question was badly damaged and it was not in working condition. Whole matter was reported to Ops who assured that new product would be supplied to him shortly or his entire amount would be refunded, but they neither handed over the said machine to complainant nor returned his money. However, OP-4 has refunded Rs.10100/-received by him as him commission to complainant. Complainant made many requests to OPs to refund his entire amount but all in vain. On the other hand, OP-1 to 3 has denied all the allegations of complainant and stressed mainly on the point that when complainant has not used the machine, he can not allege that it is not in working condition. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not their consumer and have no concern with him. On the contrary, OP-4 admitted that complainant paid whole amount through him and he transferred the same in the account of OP-1 to 3 after deducting his share of commission of Rs.10100/-, which he has already refunded to complainant as machine purchased by him was not upto the satisfaction of complainant. He has prayed for dismissal of complaint and asserted that he has no role to play in the grievance of complainant as there is no deficiency in service on his part.

13                             From the careful perusal of evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that main grievance of complainant is that machine ordered by him from OP-1 to 3 through OP-4 was not up to mark as he ordered for a fresh new machine, but product sent by OP-1 to 3 was having scratches as admitted by them. It was the duty of Ops to provide defect free new machine to him and if complainant was not satisfied with them, they should have either sent the new product or it was their liability to refund the amount received from complainant through OP-4. They have no right to illegally retain the hard earned money of complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-1 to 3 and is dismissed against OP-4, who is mere a dealer and has already returned his share of commission earned by him to complainant. OP-1 to 3 are directed to refund the cost price of Rs.54,900/- of Diesel Inter-Cultivator 9HP to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 7.06.2017, when complainant made payment to them till final realization. OP-1 to 3 are further directed to pay Rs.5000/-to complainant  as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 18.04.2017

          Member            President       

           (P Singla)         (Ajit Aggarwal)