Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of Kumar Modern multi crop crusher or payment of Rs.4,10,000/- together with interest @24% p.a., from 16-02-12 to 16-05-12 in the alternative; Rs.2,00,000/- being loss of earning due to defective machine; Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.  In brief the averments of the complainant are these:

The 2^nd opposite party is manufacturer of Kumar Modern Multi crop crushers.  The 1^st opposite party is an authorized dealer of the  2^nd opposite party.   The complainant purchased Kumar Modern Multi crop crusher from the 1^st opposite party for Rs.4,10,000/- through the financial assistance of the 3^rd opposite party.   The said machine was meant for harvesting paddy and maize crops.   The complainant took delivery of the said machine on 18-02-12.  The said machine did not work properly soon after delivery due to manufacturing defect.  The complainant brought the same to the notice of the opposite parties              1 and 2.   Technical personnel of the opposite parties 1 and 2 came to complainant’s village, tested the machine and found some technical defects and rectified the same by changing the sieve and some blades for smooth functioning of the said machine.     Even after replacement the said machine did not fit for maize crop due to manufacturing defect.   The maize seeds were broken while separating from gross and it is an internal process for separation of seed and dust.   Since the date of purchase the machine did not function properly for maize crop.   The 1^st opposite party never responded positively even after receiving complaints.   The complainant did not claim any relief against the 3^rd opposite party.   Supplying a defective machine amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.    The 3^rd opposite party remained exparte.  

4.    The 2^nd opposite party filed memo adopting version of the 1^st opposite party and their contention in brief is hereunder:

        The 1^st opposite party is only one of the outlet show room of the 2^nd opposite party for giving demonstration and information about the products of the 2^nd opposite party.   All the transactions including the sales of the products of the 2^nd opposite party are only from Naduppalayam, Erode subject to jurisdiction of Courts at Erode.    Sales of all the products will be directly from the 2^nd opposite party not from the 1^st opposite party but consideration of sold products can be paid to the 1^st opposite party for business convenience and raising bills.   The complainant has added the 1^st opposite party to attract jurisdiction of this Forum only.  This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complainant.     The opposite parties                  1 and 2 are not properly represented.  The State Governments of South India including the State of Andhra Pradesh accepted the quality and specifications of products of the 2^nd opposite party and used to purchase products of the 2^nd opposite party and supply them to farmers on subsidy.   The 2^nd opposite party is a certified company with ISO 9001 – 2008 certificate.    The subject product namely Kumar Modern multi crop thresher was approved by the Government basing on the commercial test report No.TH-16/245 September, 2008 issued by the Southern Region form machinery training and testing institute.   The said machine was transported from Naduppalayam through a Lorry under L.R. dated 17-01-2012 and reached the showroom of the 1^st opposite party on 19-01-2012 and the said fact was intimated to the complainant and to the 3^rd opposite party.  In the presence of the representatives of the 3^rd opposite party, the representatives of the opposite parties 1 and 2 have given demonstration of the said machine and also shown physical verification of each and every part and the complainant in demonstration of the full day on 23-01-2012 and after few hours of demonstration and witnessing the functioning of the machine took delivery of the machine on 24-01-2012.  On the same day i.e., on 24-01-2012, the complainant has addressed a letter, dated 24-01-2012 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Agriculture Engineering Department stating that the machine was in good condition and it is running without any problem and without any damage to the grains and similarly the 3^rd opposite party has given Utilization Certificate – Additional Farm Mechanization Project.  The complainant and the 3^rd opposite party have also given good certification about the machine sold to the complainant and also expressed their satisfaction about the working condition of the said machine.    The representatives of the opposite parties 1 and 2 deputed trained employees for training the complainant to operate the said machine for a few days and accordingly the opposite parties 1&2 have provided their employees and the complainant was trained under them and plied the said machine and conducted the work of thrashing of the above said three varieties of grains and very much satisfied and then only, he requested the 1^st opposite party to give invoice and obtained invoice No.25 dated 16-02-2012.  The complainant has used the said machine day and night on hire and earned good profits to the knowledge of each and everybody and the said machine worked to the satisfaction of the complainant and with customers.  The representatives of the 3^rd opposite party have also examined and inspected the working condition of the said machine subsequently for releasing subsidy.  After their satisfaction, the 3^rd opposite party was pleased to release the subsidy through Demand Draft No.809590, dated 18-02-2012 drawn on Indian Bank in the name of the 3^rd opposite party for Rs.1,50,000/- as per the Letter No.FM(1) 71/11, dated 24-02-2012 of the Commissioner and Director of Agriculture, A.P., Hyderabad.  During the period of interregnum on the request of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party has supplied the necessary implements/setting useful for thrashing groundnut worth of Rs.70,000/- on the assurance of the complainant, the said amount will be paid after releasing subsidy and will obtain invoice.  But, as promised upon, the complainant did not choose to pay the above said amount, even after release and encashment of the subsidy amount, inspite of repeated demands of the opposite parties 1 and 2. In this connection there arose some misunderstandings between the complainant and representatives of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The complainant kept and keeping the said machine working throughout the day with short gaps and earned good amount.  The working hours of the machine can be estimated through the cylinder bolts and basing upon the working hours, the size of the cylinder bolts will decease.  There is decrease of one inch in the cylinder bolts of the said machine supplied to the complainant and this itself shows that the said machine was subjected to over work and for such decrease in normal conditions, it will take two and half years or three seasons.  Thus, the complainant used the said machine through its full length.  The said machine did not give any trouble or any kind of problem to the complainant and the complainant with fraudulent intention has given false information about the size of tire in the complaint and also about the functioning of the machine.  The capacity and earning on the machine was wrongly given by the complainant in his complaint.  There is no technical fault or mechanical defect or manufacturing defect in the machine supplied to the complainant and it is a best machine.  The mechanics of the opposite parties 1&2 never opined like that, as the complainant stated in his complaint.  The seeds are also in good condition after thrashing them and they never broken and all the suitable and necessary equipment is provided to the said machine.  Even today, the said machine is being operated by the complainant and it is in good working condition and there is no fault or defect in the working conditions of the said machine.  The complainant never expressed his dissatisfaction about the working condition of the said machine to the opposite parties at any point of time.  As the representatives of the opposite parties 1&2 are demanding for payment of the value of the ground nuts setting of Rs.70,000/- which was taken additionally on credit from the 1^st opposite party, the complainant has pressed this complaint with all false and untenable allegations to blackmail the opposite parties 1&2.  The complainant did not sustain any loss.  There is no necessity for replacement of the said machine.  The working condition of the said machine will also depend upon the maintenance of the owner and operation of the driver.  The opposite parties 1&2 will not be held liable and responsible for the malfeasance and misfeasance of the owner and his driver relating to any problem in the machine.  This is the first case against the opposite parties 1&2.  This itself speaks in volumes about the falsity of the contentions of the complainant.  There are no bonafidies on the part of the complainant in filing this complaint, except malafidies.  Only to have wrongful gain from opposite parties, the complainant has filed this complaint, but for nothing else.  The complainant has approached this Honourable Forum with unclean hands.  The complaint therefore may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-6 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 to B-6 on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are these:

        1.  Whether this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the              complainant?     

        2.  Whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 supplied defective multi              crop crusher and        if so committed deficiency of service?

        3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        4.  To what relief?

6.     Admitted facts in this case are these:

          a. The 2^nd opposite party is manufacturer of multi crop thresher                         machines  (Ex.A-1).

        b.  The complainant purchased multi crop thresher from the 1^st                  opposite party on subsidy through the financial assistance                    of the 3^rd opposite party (Ex.A-2 to A6 = B1, B2, B4 & B5).

7.    POINT No.1:-    Ex.A-1 is the brochure issued by the                       2^nd opposite party.   In Ex.A-1 the 1^st opposite party was described as company showroom.   According to Section 11 (2)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act,  a complaint can be instituted in whose jurisdiction any one of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of 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 works for gain.   Since a part of cause of action arose at Tenali through branch office of the 2^nd opposite party this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction is devoid of merit and we answer this point against the opposite parties 1 and 2.    

8.   POINT No.2:-    Kumar Multi Crop thresher was certified by ISI as seen from Ex.B-6.  In Ex.A-1 the opposite parties 1 and 2 described the features of Kumar facing type multi crop thresher machine and Kumar emerald type multi crop thresher machine as detailed infra:

9.    The complainant in para 5 of his complaint mentioned that he took delivery of Kumar multi crop crusher on 18-02-12 and soon after delivery the said machine did not function properly due to manufacturing defect, the said machine did not work properly for maize crop.  The said averments of the complaint clearly revealed that the said machine suffered from manufacturing defect in respect of maize crop only.   The opposite parties 1 and 2 denied the same. 

10.  In Rakesh Gowtham vs. Sanghi brothers limited and others (2010 (3) CPJ 105 (NC) it was held that the onus was on the petitioner/complainant to prove the manufacturing defects.

11.   In Sushila Automobiles Private Limited vs. Dr. Birendra Narayan Prasad and others (2010 (3) CPJ 130 (NC) it was held that the State Commission has failed to consider that the complainant had not been able to discharge its onus to prove the manufacturing defect by producing any expert opinion or from the records such as job cards. The burden is on the complainant to prove the manufacturing defects in the tyres.

12.   In Suresh Chand Jain vs. Service Engineer & Sales Provider, MRF Limited and another 2011 (1) CPR 281 (NC) it was held:

            “Onus to prove that there was a manufacturing defect in the tyres was on the petitioner which he failed to discharge by leading any cogent evidence.  The petitioner did not produce any expert evidence to either show the nature of defect or proof of manufacturing defect.   The petitioner has failed to prove that the tyres purchased by him suffered from manufacturing defect.   We agree with the view taken by the For a below that the petitioner had failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaints”:.  

13.  Taking a clue from the above decisions, that burden is on the complainant to prove that the said machine suffered from manufacturing defect since the said machine worked properly in respect of paddy crop.    The complainant did not take any recourse to prove the nature of defect or that the said machine suffered from manufacturing defect.  The complaint was also silent when technical personnel of the opposite parties replaced blades and sieve.   On the other hand, the opposite parties relied on Ex.B-2 letter dated 24-01-12 issued to the Assistant Executive Engineer, which reads as follows:

        “I have purchased multicrop thresher machine from Kumar Industries through Andhra Pradesh dealer Kumar Traders at Tenali, Guntur (dt) A.P. for which I have been sanctioned subsidy amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from RKVY 2012-13 APS Agro industries Development Corporation Limited (APSADCL).

               I used the machine for my own purpose, and then used for rental purpose for another farmer.  The machine has been very useful to our family, and our economic growth.                         The machine is running without any problem and without any damages to the grains so, the farmers like this machine very much.  Thanks to agriculture engineering department and Andhra Pradesh Government”. 

        Under those circumstances, the contention of the complainant that the said machine suffered from manufacturing defect cannot be accepted as the complainant failed to prove the same.   We therefore opine that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainant.

14.    POINT No.3:-  In view of our findings on point No.2, the complainant is not entitle to any compensation.  We therefore answer this point also against the complainant.

15.    POINT No.4:   In view of our findings on point No.2 and 3, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.    

          Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th of January, 2013.

          MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant  :

 For Opposite Parties 1 & 2:

PRESIDENT