Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/926/2010

Ravinder Kumar S/o Kadam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s New Vishwakarma Agro Industries - Opp.Party(s)

Harinder Kumar

29 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 926   of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 1.10.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 29.02.2016.

Ravinder Kumar aged about 45 years son of Sh. Kadam Singh, resident of Village Rattangarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.   

                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/S New Vishwakarma Agro Industies, Sangrur Road ( near Power Grid), Dirba Mandi, Sangrur, Punjab through its Partner/Prop./Manager.
2. Assistant Agriculture Engineer, Agricultural Department, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                                           …Respondents.

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Harinder Kumar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Rameshwar Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondent No.1.

              None for respondent No.2.  

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Ravinder Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to replace the defective machine with new one or to refund the cost of same i.e. Rs. 1,40,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from 14.12.2009 till its realization and further to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment as well as Rs. 11,000/- as cost of proceedings.    

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was willing to purchase a straw reaper and for that purpose, he approached to OP No.2 who issued the permit to the complainant for its purchase from OP No.1 and the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 5000/- with OP No.2 as advance money by way of demand draft bearing No. 129021. After that complainant took the delivery of the machine by making payment of balance amount of Rs. 1,35,000/- to Op No.1 vide Bill No. 63 dated 14.12.2009 and the complainant was given subsidy of Rs. 20,000/- on the purchase of said machine through Op No.2. At the time of purchase of the said machine, it was assured by Op No.1 that the said machine is in perfectly in order and in case  any defect arise, the same will be removed free of costs. In the month of April, 2010, complainant found that the said machine was not working properly and the matter was reported to OP No.1 telephonically and further by written various letters dated 20.4.2010, 29.4.2010 and 4.5.2010 but OP No.1 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OP No.1 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, does not fall under the definition of Consumer without jurisdiction, no deficiency in service, technical question is involved in the present complaint which required elaborate evidence and present complaint is abuse of process of law of the Hon’ble Forum and on merit all the allegations mentioned in the complaint has been denied being wrong and incorrect. It has been further mentioned that it is correct that complainant has availed subsidy on the purchase of machine from the State of Haryana and further it has been admitted that a straw reaper was sold to Ravinder Kumar vide invoice No. 63 dated 14.12.2009 and subsidy was granted to the buyer as per norms. But it has been specifically denied that there was any manufacturing defect in the machine. The product manufactured by OP No.1 was of good quality and the same was having commercial test report from the Government of India. Further at the time of sale, it was told to the buyer that if, there will be any manufacturing defect in the machine, the buyer would have to bring the machine in the workshop of Op No.1 at Sangrur (Punjab) as the OP No.1 has no work place or workshop to repair the machine in the State of Haryana. In this case, the complainant never brought his machine in the workshop of OP No.1. It has been further mentioned that on call, the representative of OP No.1 visited the complainant and gave him know, how to operate the machine as he noticed there that complainant was not having skilled driver to operate the machine properly. The complainant purchased the machine for his own use but it was noticed that complainant was using the machine for commercial purpose and running the machine on hire basis in the field of the different farmers of the different villagers and particularly when the representative of the OP visited the complainant, at that time, the complainant funning the machine on hire basis in the field of Sh. Jaswant Singh, resident of village Bhogpur and in the fields of other. Lastly it has been stated that complainant has not stated about the specific malfunctioning of the machine, which also shows that there was no defect in the machine. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint as there is no any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.

4.                     OP No.2 also appeared and filed its written statement separately mentioning therein that as per Government Guidelines subsidy was granted to the complainant on purchase of straw reaper but it has been specifically denied that OP No.2 asked the complainant to purchase the said straw reaper from the OP No.1. The OP No.2 has no concerned whatsoever with the Op No.1 or the complainant. It was the choice of the complainant, to choose any fabricator from the list of numbers of approved fabricators to purchase any Agricultural implements including straw reaper. Rest contents of the complaint were also denied being wrong and manipulated with prayer for dismissal of complaint against OP No.2.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of retail invoice dated 14.12.2009 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application dated 29.4.2009 as Annexure C-2, Photo copies of Postal receipts and acknowledgement as Annexure C-2 to C-5, Photo copy of repair bill dated 27.4.2010 & 15.3.2011 issued by M/s Narender engineering Works, Inddri (Karnal) as Annexure C-6 & C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Malkit Singh as Annexure RX and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. However, OP No.2 tendered into evidence documents relating to subsidy and formalities completed by the complainant as Annexure R2/1 to R2/11 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

8.                     The only grievances of the complainant is that straw reaper purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 through OP No.2 vide bill bearing No.63 dated 14.12.2009 for a sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-, was not working properly when he noticed it in April, 2010. A complaint was lodged with Op No.1 vide application dated 24.4.2010 (Annexure C-2) through registered post. Further Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the repair bills dated 27.4.2010 Annexure C-6 and dated 15.3.2011 Annexure C-7 vide which the complainant has spent a sum of Rs. 9230/- and Rs. 15363/- on the repair of straw reaper machine and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

9.                     On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 hotly argued at length that the complaint of the complainant is nothing except abuse of process of law. The complainant totally failed to disclose that what type of manufacturing defect was in the machine/straw reaper. In Para No.6 of the complaint, the complainant has simply mentioned that “said machine was not working properly” which shows that the complainant leveling a false and vague allegation regarding the manufacturing defect. It has been further argued by the counsel for the OP No.1 that to prove his case, complainant has obtained false, manipulated  and fabricated repairs bills Annexure C-6 and C-7, even if, we peruse the contents of these bills, it is evident that an amount of Rs. 9230/- vide bill No. 9 dated 27.4.2010 (Annexure C-6) and Rs. 15363/- vide bill dated 15.3.2011 (Annexure C-7) has been charged on account of only replacement of blade, baring, chain and labour and these items comes under the definition of consumable item. At the time of inspection by the representative of OP No.1 the complainant was using his straw reaper for commercial purpose and running the machine on hire basis in the field of the different farmers of different villagers including in the field of Jaswant Singh of village Bhogpur.  Learned counsel for the OP No.1 further argued that the first repair bill i.e. Annexure C-6 is of the date of 27.04.2010 when almost the wheat crop was harvested and the next bill dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure C-7) is for the next season. Further from these bills it is also evident that the straw reaper/ machine of the complainant was in working order as he had changed its blade and chain which are wear and tear items and occasionally replaceable in every season of crop and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10.                   After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP as the complainant has not filed any documents or expert/mechanic report that the machine/straw reaper in question was having any manufacturing defect. We have perused the repair bills Annexure C-6 and C-7 minutely and carefully. These bills are only for replacement of wear and tear items i.e. blade, baring and chain etc. which were required replacement in every season. We have also perused the whole of the complaint of complainant but the complainant has nowhere mentioned in the complaint that what type of manufacturing defect was in the machine and from where he got it repaired for the manufacturing defect. Even the complainant has not mentioned in the complaint regarding amount spent through repair bills Annexure C-6 and C-7 which shows that, have been procured after filing the complaint. Even in the prayer clause, the complainant has mentioned that OPs be directed to refund the cost of machine with interest and not demanded the repair or replacement of any part or any refund the amount spent by him on repairs of manufacturing defects.

11.                   In these circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that straw reaper/ machine was having any manufacturing defect and in the absence of any documentary evidence, we cannot held that the OPs are deficient in any manner. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint of complainant and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced: 29.02.2016.

                                                                        (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                        (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                        MEMBER