Orissa

Kendrapara

CC/32/2020

Akhaya Kumar Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Bisakha Agro, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ramani Samal & Associates

23 May 2023

ORDER

OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KENDRAPARA, ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/32/2020
( Date of Filing : 06 Nov 2020 )
 
1. Akhaya Kumar Mohanty
S/o- Late Harekrushna Mohanty At- Badambila Po- Namouza Ps-Aul
Kendrapara
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. M/S Bisakha Agro,
Ganeswarpur, Januganj (Near Reliance Petrol Pump) Ps- Industrial Balasore-756019
Odisha
2. Mr Abhimanyu Dhinda
Prop. Of M/S Bisakha Agro At- Shirakoli Po-Guruda Ps- Remuna Balasore-756019
Odisha
3. Authorized Officer,
Zoomlion India Pvt. Ltd. Panvel, raigarh-410206
Maharastra
4. Authorized Officer,
Zoomlion Heavy Machinery Co.Ltd. Plot No. 49, Panvel, Indrustrial Co.Op Estate Ltd. Panvel, Raigarh-410206
Maharastra
5. Authorized Officer,
Team Commotrade(India)Pvt.Ltd. 2A. Prince Apartment, 18/59, Ormes Road, Kiltauk-60010 India
6. Shriram Transport Finance Company Ltd
Near Canara Bank,1st Floor Pradhan Market Complex Sahadev Khunta Balasore-756001
Odisha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Pravat Kumar Padhi PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Bibekananda Das MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri Ramani Samal & Associates, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 Sri Tapan Kumar Jena, Advocate for the Opp. Party 1
Dated : 23 May 2023
Final Order / Judgement

MR. PRAVAT KUMAR PADHI, PRESIDENT:-                   

            Complainant has filed this case seeking return of defective harvestor, 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 from Op No.1 & 2 who is alleged to be the dealer of Zoomlion India Pvt. Ltd. Company. The Complainant has paid Rs. 6,50,000/-. In addition to that Rs. 20,000/- was taken towards insurance, Rs. 16000/- for documentation charges etc.

             After purchase of the harvestor spare parts broken only after 8 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. 27.01.2020 to OpNo.1 to return the harvestor, but OpNo.1 remained silent.

              Notice was duly served upon the Ops but none of the Ops except OpNo.3 filed their written version. Op No.3 filed their written version. 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 fact Zoomlion India Pvt. Ltd. which is separate 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. 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. 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 and deliberately remained absent to clarify us to settle the dispute, we held OpNo.1 & 2 to be responsible for the entire issue. Complainant is an unemployed person purchased the harvestor to earn his livelihood by investing Rs. 6,00,000/- and Govt. subsidy so also finance. But the harvestor machine found to be defective. Therefore, we direct the  OpNo.1 & 2 to take back the harvesting machine from the Complainant and refund the deposited amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and the interest of OpNo.6 towards financing the harvestor can’t be ignored for which we direct OpNo.1 & 2 to clear the loan amount for the said harvestor and if the Complainant his paid some  installments to Op No.6 the same may be paid to the Complainant by deducting from the loan and adding with Rs. 6,00,000/- 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 24th day of May,2023.             

                              I, agree

                                Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

                           MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Pravat Kumar Padhi]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bibekananda Das]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.