Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/377/2019

Alakh Agriculture - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navbharat Beej Company - Opp.Party(s)

N.L Garg

06 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                                Sh.Rajbir Singh, President.                                                                      

  Dr.K.S.Nirania and Smt.Harisha Mehta, Members

                                                                       Complaint Case No.377 of 2019.                                                                              

  Date of Instt.:  09.09.2019.                                                                                           Date of Decision:  06.05.2024.

Alakh Agriculture and Development Society House No.172/21 Model Town, Tohana through its President Mrs.Pratibha w/o Gurpreet Singh.

                                                                                               ...Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.Navbhrat Beej Company, Office-8, Around Additional Mandi Sirsa- 125055. 2.Jagjit Agro Industries, Cheema Mandi, District Sangrur Punjab 148029. 3.Saaron Mechanical Works, 1.5 Km.Mansa Road, Cheema Barnala Cheema Mandi.

                                                                                               ...Opposite parties.

Complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:                   Sh.K.K.Goyal, Advocate for complainant.                                                                   OP No.1 exparte VOD 14.01.2020.                                                                                   Sh.I.D.Sihag, Advocate for Ops No.2 & 3.                     

ORDER

Dr.K.S.Nirania,Member

 

1.                                The main facts pertaining to this complaint are that the complainant-society had purchased happy seeder from Op No.1 vide bill No.391 dated 30.07.2018; that after 2-3 months its purchase, during the process of use, there developed some defects, therefore, intimation was given to the Op No.1; that the product was repaired by the mechanic of the Op No.1 but it again stopped working, therefore, Op No.1 again intimated but it, despite assurance, did not turn up again; that there developed cracks in the seeder and the Ops were given information regarding this with a request besides serving legal notice upon them to do the needful but they neither replaced the same nor refunded the cost thereof. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

2.                    Despite service, none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.01.2020.

3.                    The averments of this complaint have been strongly opposed in the reply/written statement filed on behalf of Ops No. 2 & 3 wherein several preliminary objections such as cause of action, concealment of material facts, estoppal and locus standi etc. It has been further submitted that the complainant has not made compliance of Section 13 (1) (c) of CPAct; that the complainant has already obtained huge amount of subsidy for purchasing of happy seeder and now the complainant has filed the present complaint on false and baseless grounds; that the product in question after its manufacturing was got tested from the State Level Farm Machinery Training and Testing Institute Rehman Khera, Hardoi Road, Lukhnow, therefore, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed because there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying Ops. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                                In the evidence, the complainant has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A with documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C6 whereas the Ops No.2 & 3 have tendered affidavits Ex.RW2 & 3/A.

5.                                Oral final arguments heard from both sides, which, to our considered opinion, were almost repetition of averments of both sides on record. We have perused the same.  

6.                                We perused the judicial record minutely in view of rival submissions of both sides.

7.                                After hearing both the parties at length and going through the material on the case file it transpires that the complainant had purchased a Happy Seeder from Op No.1 through Annexure C1. The grievance of the complainant is that the product in question did not work properly and went out of order within 2/3 months of its purchase. Though same was repaired by Op No.1 but it again stopped working and thereafter Ops neither replaced the same nor refunded the cost thereof as there developed cracks in the product in question. In support of his contentions learned counsel for the complainant has drawn the attention of this Commission towards the document Annexure C2 made by Dashmesh Engineer Workshop wherein it has been mentioned that the happy seeder sent to it for repair work is in broken condition at several places and further advised to have a chat with the manufacturing company for getting the same replaced.  

8.                                The complainant has filed the present complaint on the grounds that happy seeder stopped working within 2-3 months of its purchase  and further that  some cracks developed on it but it is strange that the complainant has not placed on file any complaint lodged by it with the Ops and even no photographs have been placed on the case file to show that there developed cracks at several places on the product in question. In the para No.3 of the complaint, the complainant itself has admitted that the same was repaired by the Op No.1 by sending its mechanic but thereafter its grievance was not redressed. Undisputedly, the aim of the Consumer Protection Act is to provide better and all-round protection to consumers and this is the law which directly pertains to market place and seeks to redress complaints arising from it and it also provides effective safeguards to the consumers against different types of exploitation such as defective goods, unsatisfactory (or deficient) services and unfair trade practices.  If the product is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source but in the present case the complainant has even failed to produce on the case file any complaint lodged with the Ops qua not working of the Happy seeder. However, developing of cracks within 2-3 months of the delivery of the product  raises a question on the quality of the product. Since the product in question has already been repaired once by the Op No.1, who is exparte in the present case, therefore, the end of justice would be met if we allow the compliant partly with a direction to the Op No.1 to get the same repaired from Ops No.2 & 3 free of costs.

9.                                Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we partly allow this complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to get the Happy Seeder repaired free of costs from the Ops No.2 & 3. It is made clear that complainant would take the happy seeder to the Op No.1 within 15 days from today and thereafter the Op No.1 would get the same repaired from Ops No.2 & 3 within a period of 45 days. We also direct the Ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5500/- for mental agony and harassment including litigation expenses to the complainant.  The order be complied within a period of 45 days from today failing which the Ops would replace the Happy Seeder with new one.  The liability of the Ops would be jointly and severally.

10.                              In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. This order be also uploaded forthwith on website of this Commission, as per rules, for perusal of parties herein. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open Commission.                                                                            Dated: 06.05.2024

 

                                                                                                                                   

            (K.S.Nirania)                                    (Harisha Mehta)                                 (Rajbir Singh)                             

              Member                                   Member                                              President