DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 29^th  day of  November 2012

Present : Smt.Seena H, President

            : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

            : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member           Date of filing: 12/04/2012

(C.C.No.79/2012)

Sindhu.S

W/o.Muralidharan,

Agricultural Officer,

Krishi Bhavan, Muthuthala,

Pattambi,

Palakkad.                                                       -        Complainant

(By Adv.C.P.Pramod)

V/s

1. Managing Director,

   M/s.Redlands Ashlyn Motors,

   H.O.Redlands House,

   Karikkath Line,

   M.G.Road, Thrissur

(By Adv.M.Unnikrishna Menon)  

2.Managing Partner,

   Divisional Engineer,

   The Kerala Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.

   Palakkad District Office,

   Coimbatore Road,

    Kalmandapam,Palakkad – 678 001                        -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.C.Vaidyanathan)

O R D E R

By Smt.SEENA.H, PRESIDENT

In a nutshell the case of the complainant is as follows:

Complainant working as Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Muthuthala Grama Panchayath purchased one paddy harvesting machine for the Muthuthala  Grama Panchayath as per their project included in the annual plan for the year 2009-2010. Complainant was deputed as implementation officer for the purchase of the equipment. Complainant purchased the same for Rs.10,95,000/-, from 2^nd opposite party on 14/12/10. 1^st opposite party, the manufacturer offered  a guarantee of 500 operated hours or 12 months from the date of delivery whichever is early. The machine was delivered in the month of February 2011. Even at the stage of trial run of the equipment by the staff of 1^st opposite party, the machine showed some defects. The harvesting machine which is to separate the paddy grain delivered paddy with its husk removed. Further addition of soil and mud in the grain tank was also noticed. The defects was pointed out to the staff of 1^st opposite party then and there itself. 1^st Opposite party took back the machine assuring return of the machine after repairs within 20 days. The machine was not returned within the said period, instead opposite party supplied an old machine after 6 months stating that it is the one taken for repairs from the complainant. On physical examination itself complainant was convinced that  it was not the machine supplied to the complainant. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. Hence the complaint.

Both opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. Both opposite parties admitted purchase of the machine by the complainant. Warranty provided for 500 operational hours or 12 months which ever is earlier is also admitted. Opposite party No.1 denied the say of the complainant that the machine was supplied in the month of February 2011. According to opposite party, the machine was supplied in the month of December itself. In the month of February, the complainant informed the opposite party that harvesting was over and requested opposite party to take back the machine for repairs and make it ready for the next season. At that time machine has run for 198 hrs. Machine was repaired and was informed to the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite party to retain the machine with 1^st opposite party itself since the Panchayath did not  have a provision to keep the machine. Only on September 2011 it was taken back. Machine was lying open at opposite party’s service station and hence it may not be looking as new. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.

According to 2^nd opposite party, they suggested the Panchayath to approach 1^st opposite party to finalize the purchase. The warranty was also executed by them. 2^nd opposite party  neither informed about the alleged defects in the working condition of the machine by the complainant nor informed the fact that it was given for repairs with the 1^st opposite party only on 13/10/11. The Panchayath President informed about the changes in the machine after effecting repairs. According to 2^nd opposite party, if at all there is any defect in the harvesting machine complainant has to seek remedy only against 1^st opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency on their part.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of the affidavit of complainant and Ext.A1 to A6. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. None of the opposite parties filed chief affidavit.

Issues for consideration

1.    Whether the harvesting machine supplied to the complainant is a defective one ?

2.    If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to  ?

Issue No.1  

It is an admitted fact that complainant has purchased paddy harvesting machine manufactured by 1^st opposite party. Ext.A1 evidences the fact that the machine was purchased through the dealer 2^nd opposite party. The specific grievance of the complainant is that the machine manufactured by the 1^st opposite party was found to be defective within the period of warranty itself and also 1^st opposite party failed  to deliver the same machine after effecting repairs. Apart from the chief affidavit there is no evidence before the Forum to prove the alleged defects and supply of old machine in the place of new one. But no contrary evidence was adduced by both opposite parties to disprove the stand of the complainant. It is to be noted that pleadings not supported by chief affidavit is not at all an evidence. Here  both opposite parties has not filed any chief affidavit and hence there is no contrary  evidence to that one adduced by the complainant. Moreover in  Ext.A4  reply notice, suggestions are made by the opposite party No.1 for settlement of the complaint. Three proposals were made for amicable settlement. This itself is admission of the defect. As per the available evidence on record, we are of the view that the harvesting machine supplied to the complainant is a defective one.

Issue No.2

Complainant has claimed Rs.4,99,000/- as damages, for which no evidence is forthcoming from the part of the complainant. At the time of cross also, PW1 has  deposed that Damages\ kw_Ôn¨v Rm³ tcJsbm¶pw lmPcm¡nbn«nÃ. Hence we find that refund of the purchase amount will meet the ends of justice.

In the result complaint partly allowed and we order the following:

1.    1^st opposite party shall pay Rs.10,95,000/- (Rupees Ten lakh ninety five thousand only) to the complainant through 2^nd opposite party.

2.    On receipt of the amount, complainant shall forthwith return the harvesting machine to the 2^nd opposite party, which in turn shall be delivered to 1^st opposite party.

3.    Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order

4.    There is no order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th  day of November 2012.

    Sd/-

Seena H

President

    Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

    Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 –  Photocopy of delivery note of the machine dated 17/12/10

Ext.A2 –  Photocopy of invoice dated 14/12/2010

Ext.A3 –  Photocopy of lawyernotice dated 4/1/12

Ext.A4 –  Reply to lawyer notice dtd.23/1/12   

Ext.A5 –  Copy of notice dated 21/2/12 sent to 1st opposite party

Ext.A6 –  Brochure of the harvesting machine

Complainant cross examined

PW1 – Sindhu.S

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party

Nil

Cost  

No cost allowed.