Haryana

Ambala

CC/306/2016

Balwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jaswant Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Singla

29 Jan 2018

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 306 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution         : 03.08.2016.

                                                          Date of decision   : 29.01.2018.

 

Balwinder Singh son of Sh. Balwant Singh, r/o Village Hema Majra, Sub Tehsil Mullan, District Ambala.

……. Complainant.

Vs.

 

1.       M/s Jaswant Singh & Sons, Pipli Road, Opposite Easy Day Store, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory.

2.       M/s Jaswant Singh & Sons, Pipli Road, Opposite Easy Day Store, Kurukshetra, through its authorized signatory- Branch office at main market, near bus stand, Barara.

 ….….Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Sh. D.N. Arora, President.

                   Sh. Pushpender Kumar, Member.

Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.                           

 

Present:       Sh. Anil Singla, counsel for the complainant.

Sh. Harpreet Singh, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that complainant is owner of land about 30 acres situated at village Hema Majra, Ambala Tehsil Barara District Ambala which the complainant used to cultivate being an agriculturist by profession. The OP is dealing in business of sale  of agricultural implements at Kurukshetra and also having a branch office at Main Market, near bus stand Barara, District Ambala. The representative of OPs approached to the complainant and proposed him for the purchase of agricultural implements i.e. OPAL 090-Plough and he assured to the complainant that if the complainant, after purchasing the same, do not like the working of plough, the same can be returned at a deduction of Rs.40,000/- per year for the use of plough in question. The sales representative of OPs further assured that the agricultural produce will be increased manifold by the use of plough as it will bring up the soil from the depth upto 18 inch and he further assured that the complainant can also take a subsidy amount up to Rs.40000/- from the Government as this implement is approved by the Government for this purpose. The complainant believed his wording and agreed to purchase the same at the rate of Rs. 2,25,000/- as offered by him. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/-as advance money to the OPs by way of cheque issued by the complainant out of his account maintained with the HDFC Bank Ltd. On 22.05.2015 the complainant approached to the OPs for taking the delivery of plough but officials of the OPs present there, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- more by saying that the plough  is worth Rs. 2,50,000/- and thereby  the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- as demanded by OPs. The OPs  issued the bill bearing invoice no. 9564 dated 22.05.2015 only for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- and when the complainant  raised question regarding the same, it was told to the complainant that a separate bill/receipt of Rs. 25,000/- will be issued for payment through cheque  in question but no such bill/receipt has been issued till date of Rs. 25,000/-. The plough was delivered by the OPs through branch office at Barara District Ambala. He used the agriculture implement i.e. plough  to question in his fields but no useful purpose served by using the same  and output of the fields remain  the same upon which after about 3 months, of the purchase, the complainant complained about the said to the OPs as well at the branch office Barara, upon which engineer of the OP visited to the complainant and promised that the problem of the complainant will be sorted out very soon by taking back the plough in question and refunding the amount of the complainant but nothing has been heard from the side of OP till date despite repeated requests made by the complainant and the agriculture implement  is lying without any use. It is worth mentioning here that as the OPs promised earlier that the complainant can receive a subsidy of Rs. 40,000/- from the government on the said agricultural implement, but when the complainant approached the government authorities in this regard, it was told that the implement in question is not approved by the government for subsidy  purpose, therefore, the OPs have sold the agricultural implement  by making false  promises and adopting  unfair is liable to be compensated by the OPs. He got issued a legal notice dated 04.06.2016 to the OPs. In this way, the complainant has suffered a financial loss and mental harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, Op no.1 appeared through counsel and tendered separate written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false & frivolous, no locus standi and cause of action and the no jurisdiction. On merits, learned counsel for the OP-1  has been submitted that the  representative of OP No.1 never approached  the complainant as alleged rather the complainant approached the OP at Kurukshetra for purchasing the OPAL 090 plough and purchased the same at Kurukshetra for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- out of which 25,000/- were paid in cash  and for the remaining  amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- the complainant issued a cheque no. 000040 dated 04.05.2015 but said cheque was dishonoured on its presentation on the ground of “Signature Differs”. So, OP approached the complainant and informed him about this and demanded the remaining amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from  complainant and on repeated requests the complainant paid the amount in parts without any interest delayed by him and the said cheque was returned to the complainant.  The product in question has been given to the complainant without any defect and no assurance was ever given for refunding of Rs.40,000/- per year for using the plough in question. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered affidavits as Annexure CWA/A, CW1/B & CW1/C with documents as annexure C-1  to C-5 and close his  evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for the OP tendered affidavit as Annexure R/A alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed their evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                It is not disputed that the product in question has been sold to the complainant vide Annexure C1 on dated 22.05.2011 for amounting of Rs.2,25,000/- vide invoice No.9564. As per version of the complainant he has paid total amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- has been made through cheque and Rs.2,25,000/- has been paid in cash at the time of issuance of bill.  It has been further the case of the complainant that the OP had assured for issuance of bill to the tune of Rs.25000/- lateron and thereafter the subsidy to the tune of Rs.4,000/- per year would also be granted as per government policy. It was also assured by the OP that the product i.e. plough in question would increase the agriculture produce as it would brought the soil from debt upto 18 inch.

                   The Ops have come with the plea that the complainant has only paid Rs.25000/- in cash and the cheque No.000040 dated 04.05.2015 of Rs.2,00,000/- given by the complainant got dishonoured with remarks (differ signatures) as per Annexure R2 dishonour memo dated 05.05.2015 as well as the statement of account Annexure R4, therefore, the cheque in question was returned to the complainant without taking any interest. Though the complainant paid the amount of Rs.2 lac in cash therefore, the bill for the said amount has also been issued to the complainant which is placed on case file as Annexure C1. He has not paid the extra amount qua the product in question and they have received the payment as per price settled with the complainant. No assurance for granting any subsidy has been given. The performance of the product was upto the mark and if there was any problem the same could have been got inspected through mechanical engineer/expert by moving any application.

6.                          It is worthwhile to mention here that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a benevolent social legislation as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in their judgements from time to time and is aimed at providing for better protection of the interests of the consumers as defined in the preamble to the Act itself but no one is allowed to take undue advantage of the same.  In the present the cheque given by the complainant to the OPs got dishonoured and the same was returned to the complainant without taking any interest. It is not disputed that thereafter the complainant made the payment of cheque amount which shows that the Ops were kind enough upon him as the cheque amount was received without adding interest and initiation of further proceedings as per law. Though it was for the Ops to give detail of the cheque on the invoice issued after     making the payment of dishonoured cheque by the complainant but this mistake appears to be bonafidely and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on this behalf because has not made the payment of the product in excess. The plea qua granting of subsidy on the purchase of the product in question to the complainant is also not tenable because it was the duty of the complainant to show that the product in question was purchased under the scheme attached with subsidy by the concerned department. The complainant neither made the said department as party to the present case nor produce any document on the case file to show that the product in question was purchased with subsidy facility.  Learned counsel for the OPs have rightly argued that there is violation of Section 13 (1) (c) of C.P.Act because there is no expert opinion to ascertain that the defect in the product in question, therefore, no deficiency in service can be fastened upon the Ops. The complainant has even not moved any application before this Forum to get the product in question examined through expert. On this point reliance can be taken from case law titled as The Associated Cement Company Vs. Mangal Singh decided by Hon’ble State Commission Haryana on 04.08.2010 in FAP No.2774 of 2004 and  case law titled as Laxmi Vs. Satbir 2008 (1) CPJ 186 (UT).

7.                In view of above discussion as well as the facts and circumstances of the present case we come to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency and unfair trade practice against the OPs, therefore, present complaint is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on: 29.01.2018                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                       Member

 

 

                                                                               (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

Member