MR. BIBEKANANDA DAS, MEMBER:-
Complainant has filed this case seeking return of defective harvestor machine, finalize the loan a/c, return of all down payments/installments and all expenditure towards the harvestor, refund subsidy etc. or to refund Rs. 24,50,000/- with interest and cost of litigation and mental agony amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/-.
Brief fact of this case is that the Complainant purchased one harvestor machine from Op No.1 & 2 who is alleged to be the dealer of Zoomlion India Pvt. Ltd. Company. The Complainant has paid Rs. 5,50,000/-. In addition to that Rs. 18,000/- was taken towards insurance etc.
After purchase of the harvestor machine spare parts broken frequently within 40 hours of running of machine especially baring, track, sea box, gear box within the warranty period for which Complainant has alleged to have paid the dealer and Op No.1 & 2(dealer) alleged to have promised to adjust all the amount later on. But there is no evidence to that effect.
Complainant came to know the same model machine of Zoomlion Company have lots of problem for which Complainant represented on dt. 20.01.2020 to OpNo.1 to return the harvestor machine, but OpNo.1 remained silent.
Notice was duly served upon the Ops but none of the Ops except OpNo.3 filed their written versions. OpNo.3 stated in its written version denied to have any involvement and due to resemblance of name Zoomlion the Complainant has a total misunderstanding about the Zoomlion India Pvt. Ltd. which is separate distinct entity and not concerned with this case and OpNo.3 deals only in heavy machinery required in construction line. The OpNo.3 has neither dealt with Complainant or any other Ops. The OpNo.1 & 2 are the dealer who have sold the harvestor machine. OpNo.3 to 5 are the authorized officers of the Company out of which OpNo.3 has denied to have any connection with the harvestor machine. OpNo.6 is the Finance Company who has partly financed for the harvestor. Through Govt. subsidy alleged to have been paid but no govt. Deptt. has been impleaded as Opp. party.
Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and in absence of any written version from OpNo.1 & 2, we accept the allegation made by the Complainant to be true. Since the OpNo.1 & 2 are the appropriate persons to say who is the manufacturer of the harvestor machine and deliberately remained absent to clarify us to settle the dispute, we held OpNo.1 & 2 are solely responsible for the entire issue. Complainant is an unemployed person purchased the harvestor machine to earn his livelihood by investing Rs. 5,50,000/- and Govt. subsidy so also finance. But the harvestor machine found to be defective.
From the above facts & circumstances we therefore direct the OpNo.1 & 2 to take back the harvesting machine from the Complainant and refund the deposited amount of Rs. 5,50,000/- and the interest of OpNo.6 towards financing the harvestor machine can’t be ignored for which we direct OpNo.1 & 2 to clear the loan amount for the said harvestor machine and if the Complainant has paid some installments to Op No.6 then the same may be paid to the Complainant by deducting from the loan and adding with Rs. 5,50,000/- of the Complainant. We also award cost of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the litigation. The C.C.Case is allowed and accordingly disposed off.
Issue extract of the order to the parties for compliance.
Pronounced in the open Commission, on this the 31st day of May,2023.
I, agree.
Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER
