Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/359/2019

Turna Agriculture - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Bharat Agro Industries - Opp.Party(s)

R.S Chatrath

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.                   

Complaint Case No.359 of 2019.

Date of Instt.:28.08.2019.

Date of Decision: 04.01.2024.

Turna Agriculture Welfare Soceity, Kanakhera, village Kanakhera, Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its President Jaspal Singh son of Balbir Singh.

...Complainant

                    Versus

 

1.M/s Bharat Agro Industries, Chandigarh Road, Tohana Tehsil Tohana District Fatehabad through its Proprietor.

2.M/s Saron Mechanical Works, Cheema, Tehsil Sunam District Sangrur (Punjab) through its Proprietor.

 

          ...Opposite Parties.

 

          Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

 

Present:       Sh.R.S.Chatrath, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.Mukesh Moond, Advocate for OP No.1.                                                Sh.Ishwar Dass Sihag, Advocate for Op No.2.     

CORAM:        SH. RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT.                             SMT.HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER.                                              SH.K.S.NIRANIA, MEMBER.                                  

ORDER

SH.RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant society purchased a Happy Seeder (Wheat Sowing Drill) from OP No.1 on 26.07.2018 for a sum of Rs.1,51,200/- vide invoice No.17/18/238; that the government has provided the subsidy facility to the agriculture societies of Haryana for purchasing of agriculture implements, therefore, the complainant also availed the said facility;  that the Happy seeder did not work properly, therefore, complaint was lodged with Op  No.1 but it did not give any response; that in response to the complaint dated 19.11.2018 of the complainant, Op No.2 inspected  the Happy seeder and found problems in it but it did not remove the defect despite the fact that it was taken to the workshop of Op No.2; that thereafter the Ops after fitting an old wheat seed drilling machine into the said Happy seeder, sold the same to the complainant after painting the same; that the said product developed cracks on it; that due to non working of product in question, the society had to get the work done after taking the machine on rent from other owners of the Happy Seeders;  that the complainant society requested the Ops change the same with new one and even shifted the same in the premises of Op No.1 but the Ops neither replaced the same nor redressed the grievance of the complainant. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.

2.                The Ops on notice appeared and filed their separate replies. Op No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer and non joinder of necessary parties etc. It has been further submitted that the present complaint is a misuse of process of law and has been filed just to harass and blackmail the answering OP as there is no deficiency in service on the part of it. It has been further submitted that the product in question was purchased from M/s Saaron Mechanical Works, Sangrur and the same was sold to the complainant in the same condition. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          OP No.2 in its reply has  taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, concealment of material facts and there is no compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of C.P.Act. It has been further submitted that after manufacturing the Happy Seeder it was got tested from the State Level Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute Lucknow and there was no defect in the same; that the product in question was properly repaired as and when any complaint was lodged; that complainant visited the Op No.1 with some minor problems in the product which was got removed but the complainant did not turn up to take the delivery of the same despite several requests; that there is no manufacturing defect in the product in question. Other pleas of the complaint have been controverted and prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                          In evidence, the complainant society has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7. whereas Ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A with documents Annexure R1/1 to Annexure R1/7, Annexure R2/1 and Annexure R2/2.

4.                          Final arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties have been heard and the case file has also been perused minutely.

5.                          The fact regarding purchasing (Ex.C3) of Happy seeder by the complainant from the Op No.1, duly manufactured by Op No.2, is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the product in question is lying with Op No.1.  The complainant has come with specific allegations that the product in question was having manufacturing defect and it did not work properly and even that it was old one which was sold after fitting old parts of old product with fresh painting, therefore, it got cracked soon and in support of these contentions, the complainant-society has placed on record photographs Ex.C6 and Ex.C7 on the case file.

6.                         Perusal of the photograph Ex.C7 clearly shows that there is a crack on the product in question but the Ops neither in their replies nor in their affidavit have rebutted this plea and even also failed to counter all the allegations leveled by the complainant. It is worthwhile to mention here that any consumer when he buys a new product he is under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free.  A new product could be defected as well.  It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the product.   If the product is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source.  The warranty which is given for a product is a warranty for whole of the product and when it is found that the product does not perform properly the warranty would be taken to have been breached even if no individual part could be identified as defective.  A  Consumer Commission has however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well.  After all he had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hoping that the same is dependable and trouble free. In the present complaint, the complainant has come with the plea that the product in question did not work properly   and the Ops did not redress his grievance despite several requests, therefore, finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed the present complaint.  It is proved on the case file that the complainant could not enjoy the product in question for which a considerable amount was spent. However, there is sufficient material available on the case file to show that the Ops have failed to provide the after sale service to the complainant and the Happy Seeder went out of order during the warranty period, therefore, the complaint deserves acceptance.

7.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to replace the Happy Seeder in question free of costs at the place of the complainant. The Ops are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.11000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation. The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the awarded amount would carry simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.   The liability of the Ops would be joint and several.

8.                          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance

 

Announced in open Commission.                                                          

Dated: 04.01.2024

                                                                                                        

         

 

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                 (Rajbir Singh)                       Member                              Member                              President