Date of Filing: 21-10-2014 Date of Final Order: 28-08-2015
The factual matrix of the case as can be gathered from the case record is that the Complainant purchased one Greaves Power Reaper on 01.10.2013 from the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party sends a person at the house of the Complainant to provide training as to the said Power reaper. Surprisingly, the Complainant intended to cut paddy brought the machine in the field but due to technical difficulties, the work totally stopped. The Complainant went to the show room of the Opposite Party and as per their advice made a written complaint though the Opposite Party did not issue any received copy of the Complaint. The Complainant retuned with an assurance that the Opposite Party will provide a mechanic for repairing the defect of the said Power Reaper. The opposite Party took no action for repairing the defective Power Reaper even after elapsing so many cultivation periods. Ultimately, on 15.09.2014 the Complainant submitted a written complaint before the Opposite Party but no fruitful result came out. Finding no other alternative the Complainant lodged a complaint before The A/D, Consumer Affairs Department where in date was fixed for settlement but the O.P. again failed to do the needful for which the O.P. has gross deficiency in service. Thus, the present complaint has been filed seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The Opposite Party has contested the case by filing W/V contending inter-alia that the present case is not maintainable before this Forum either in law as well as in fact. This Opposite party denied all most all the allegation of the Complaint. It is the case of the Opposite Party is that the present O.P. sends a technician to solve the problem of the said alleged power reaper and got a valid receipt from the Complainant. This O.P. further contested that he duly served his duty and is not responsible for anything on the due course of warranty. The further contention of this O.P. is that as it has no deficiency in service the Complaint is not entitled to get any relief and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
In the light of the contention of the both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the O.P any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record carefully and heard the argument of the Complainant also peruse the Evidence on Affidavit and Written Argument of the Complainant and the Opposite Party.
The Ld. Agent for the Complainant has filed the following Rulings -
- 2013-CJ-963 (N.C)
- 2014-CJ-172 (N.C)
- 2014-CJ-212 (N.C)
Point No. 1.
The Complainant purchased one Power Reaper from the Opposite Party against certain payment and the Opposite Party issued a Tax Invoice in favour of the Complainant. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the Opposite Party so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is the Consumer as per provision of section laid down in C.P. Act 1986.
Point No. 2.
The Complainant has filed the present case for Rs. 1,64,940/- i.e. far less than the prescribed limit and the opposite party is residing within this district. Thus, this Forum has every jurisdiction to try the present case and there is no dispute.
Point No. 3 & 4.
Now the above two points are taken up together for convenience of discussion. Evidently, the Complainant purchased one power reaper from the Opposite Party with payment of Rs.89.940/-. It is the case of the Complainant that after few days of purchasing the said Power Reaper it started problem for which the Complainant failed to use the said vehicle at the time of cutting crop in his cultivated field, which caused huge loss in cultivation. The Complainant several times made contact with the O.P. but that was too unheeded and the O.P. did not give proper service though the problem in the machine cropped up within the warranty period, which is, certainly is deficiency in service. Moreover, the Complainant preferred an application to the A.D., CAFBP where in also the Opposite Party failed to settle the dispute.
It is the case of the Opposite Party that admittedly the Complainant purchased the said Power Reaper from the Opposite Party against certain payment. When the problem in the machine was reported the O.P. as soon as took action and send a technician and provided free service for which it has no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.
Admittedly and evidently the Complainant purchased one Power Reaper from the M/S Laxmi Trading Company bearing model No. MY4G-120, Engine No. 01113 on 01.10.2013. The said machine was out of order on 12.10.2013 though in the meantime i.e. on 08.10.2013 one mechanic reached at the premises of the Complainant and repaired the defect of the said machine. The Ld. Agent for O.P. has filed the original receipt of free service, which transpires that the Complainant received third time free service of his machine on 08.10. 2013 but there is no evidence of 1st and 2nd service as stated by the O.P. The Ld. Agent for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that the Opposite Party has provided three times free service and the Complainant failed to prove by adducing any expert opinion that the vehicle was defective one.
On perusal, the documents made available in the record it appears that the problem in the vehicle/power reaper cropped up immediately after purchase i.e. within seven days and the O.P. gave three times free service for repairing the defect though ultimately the defect has not been cured. As and when the dispute of the newly purchased machine/ vehicle cropped up within a short period, it is reasonably be presumed that there is some inherent defect.
In this juncture reliance has been placed upon the ruling reported in 2013 CJ 963 (N.C.) where the National Commission pleased to hold that “No expert evidence is required to be obtained where defects are glaring”.
In the present case, the Complainant being a cultivator for the purpose of use the Power Reaper in his cultivated land when required but his desire totally satire as and when the defect in the said vehicle/machine has not been cured even after servicing. In this contest reliance also has been placed upon the ruling reported in 2014 CJ 212 (N.C.) where it is decided that “Whenever a brand new vehicle is sold to a consumer, there is an implied contract that vehicle will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection.”
From the entire factual matrix of the case, and the statement of facts emerging from the affidavits it is crystal clear that the vehicle in question is a defective vehicle as it also can be judged from the definition of the word ‘defect’ by way of Section 2(1) (f) of the Act which is as follows:- “Defect means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner or performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service”.
In the light of foregoing discussion, it is already proved that the O.P. sold a defective vehicle/power reaper to the Complainant that caused huge loss and harassment for which the deficiency in service of the Opposite party cannot be ruled out. Considering the above in our view, it is the moral duty of the Opposite party, an Authorized Dealer from whom the Complainant purchased the Power Reaper to set right the same with ultimate goal for “Customer Satisfaction” within the short period. In this case, the same was not properly taken up.
Considering the facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation but to hold our opinion that the act and conduct of the O.P. falls under the purview of section 2 (1) (g) of C.P. Act 1986.
Thus, we hold our further opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation from the Opposite Party.
As a result, the complaint succeeds.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered,
That the case No. DF 70/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest with costs of Rs.5,000/- against the Opposite Party.
The O.P. are hereby directed to replace the Power Reaper by a new Power Reaper in similar description which is free from all defects or to refund Rs.89,940/- the cost of said machine on return of the defective Power Reaper also directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 15,000/-as compensation for harassment, mental agonies and sufferings. The entire order shall be complied by the Opposite Party within 45 days failure of which, the O.P. shall have to pay Rs.100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund”, West Bengal.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the parties by hand/Registered post, free of cost with A/D.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Member President
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member Member
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
