Both Parties with Counsel appeared before Court. The Parties here in come to an mutual agreement of compromised in the following terms and conditions that
1) The Opposite Party No.2 shall the alleged defective mill by a new one within one month from to-day and the same shall be delivered after well tested and OK to the Complainant for which the Complaint shall acknowledge received thereof.
11) The OPNo.2, the manufacture shall pay Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand only) and the OP No. 1 the dealer also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to the Complainant within one month from the date of this Order.
111) Any Parties herein who breaches the terms and condition herein, the concerned party shall bear the legal consequences whereof.
The Order itself will be prepared in separate sheet.Announced.
The OP No. 1 and 2 deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) only before this Court and the same is received by the Complainant with her Counsel
ORDER
19-01-2023
This complaint petition is filed on 6.10.2022 by the complainant Hasina Sahani on the ground U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 that on 12-2-2022 she alongwith her younger brother went to the Opposite Party (O.P.) No. 1 and purchased a rice cum flour mill paying a sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only as price. After enquired about warranty, free repairing, free servicing etc. The mill was taken to the complainant’s house. After fitting spark was seen coming out at the meter and the complainant called the O.P. No. 1 and it was replaced buying one part at Rs. 1,200/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred) only. And on 26-4-2022, the motor coil also required replacement and it was replaced with a cost of Rs. 4,500/- plus Rs. 1,000/- as transport charge. After repairing, the mill was not working. Now the mill is in the custody of the O.P. No. 1 as asked by them. The cause of action of the case is on 26-4-2022, May 2022 and other days the O.P. refused from serving charge and there was denial of warranty. And she prayed for -
- To allow the complaint and issue summons to the Opposite parties.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite parties to return the Price of the Mill Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) to the complainant for selling and producing the defective and deficient product.
- To pass an order directing the Opposite parties to return the replacing defect parts, servicing charges, transport charge Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only to the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the opposite parties to give as compensation to the complainant for her mental distress and disturbed on account financial loss detrimental to her interest occasioned by negligence by the opposite parties Rs. 3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fifty Thousand).
- To pass an order directing the opposite parties to give the cost of litigation amount Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the opposite parties to give a sum total amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs and Ten Thousand) only adding all (B) to (E) to the complainant.
- To pass any others orders which deem fit for the ends of justice.
And that on 22-12-2022 the Opposite Parties are also filed written version in the above referred case. The O.P. No. 1 stated that he never gave any promise of one year warranty, free repairing, free servicing of the mill in case the same was not working properly. It is stated that the flow arose in the machine due to over using of the rice mill as it is fit for using in small quantity of the domestic use and the details of it is clearly written in the said mill itself and the same has been informed to the complainant at the time of selling of the mill. It is also mentioned that the defect of this said rice mill is due to over using of the rice mill.
The O.P. No. 2 submitted in his written version that the O.P. No. 2, Annapurna Agro International Pvt. Ltd, Balasore is a reputed private Ltd Company and manufacturer of “Agricultural Machineries” in the State of Odisha since July 2011. The company is an ISO 9001; 2015 certified company. The company had supplied its manufactured products including rice mills to its dealers in Manipur particularly the O.P. No. 1 interalia among others. The O.P. No. 2 at the time of supply of the manufactured goods/products to the dealers there were no manufacturing defect, no warranty/guaranty was given to the dealer/buyer (O.P. No. 1).
All manufactured products were supplied to the dealers with technical specification after being tested. And the O.P. No. 2 supplied 5 (five) items comprising of 27 pieces of product of the O.P. No. 2 including 5 Rice cum flour mills manufactured by the O.P. No. 2 as per invoice dt. 8.10.2021. It is also submitted that the O.P. No. 2 never supplied/sold any defective and deficient mills to the O.P. No. 1 and no warranty was given to the dealers including O.P. No. 1 for such products supplied by the O.P. No. 2.
In the above mentioned facts and circumstances this court directed both parties to appear before this Court in person for consideration under Section 89 of C.P.C.
Both parties with their respective counsel appeared before this court on 5.1.2023 and 12.1.2023 and submitted their versions orally. After negotiation of the parties that the O.P. No. 2 has agreed to supply a new rice cum flour mill along with Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only and O.P. No. 1 is also agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as cost of litigation to the complainant within 1 (one) month from the date of this order. These are the terms agreed by the parties for disposal of the case.
Announced in the open court.
-Sd/- -Sd/- -Sd/-
Member President Member
