DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.271 of 10-06-2011

Decided on 13-10-2011

Gurjit Singh son of Sh. Lachhman Singh, aged 37 years, Resident of village Khemuana, Tehsil and District Bathinda. .......Complainant

Versus

1. NUA Seed Pvt. Ltd., Sandhu Towers, BXX 3369, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana, Punjab, through its authorized signatories

i) Manpreet Singh

ii) Gagandeep Kaur

2. Chief Agricultural Officer, Kheti Bhawan, Dabwali Road, Bathinda.

   ......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. K.S.Bhullar, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Opposite parties exparte

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is a farmer and use to cultivate land with mechanized system. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party No.2 recommended the Paddy Transplanter Machine of Rs.2,50,000/- to be sold by the opposite party No.1, under its brand name Paddy Transplanter Model 22T 8238 and offered subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/-. The opposite party No.1 also made tall claims regarding its function and help in sowing the paddy and transplantation without the help of the labour. On the allurement by the opposite parties, the complainant purchased one Paddy Transplanter for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- vide bill/Invoice dated 10.06.2009 from the opposite party No.1 and paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt Nos.1303 and 1207 and the remaining amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the opposite party No.2 as subsidy. The complainant has further alleged that the above said Paddy Transplanter was failure in the fields due to which the complainant and other agriculturalists who purchased this machine, have suffered a great irreparable loss. So, they were resorted to staging 'dharnas' and this was published in various news papers. The opposite party No.2 also visited the fields of the complainant and other farmers and prepared exhaustive report about the failure of the said Paddy Transplanter and unfair trade practice of the opposite party No.1 and submitted the report dated 20.06.2009 to Govt. The complainant has further alleged that an FIR was lodged with the Police and the criminal case is also pending against the opposite party No.1. Further, the complainant was to sow paddy in 30 acres and got prepared the paddy plants in two acres for transplanting in 30 acres but it was transplanted in 5 acres. The plants vanished in two days and the opposite party No.2 visited the spot and found that the Paddy Transplanter was not going deep, so the plants whithered away. Due to this, the complainant has suffered the total loss of Rs.7,50,000/-. The complainant approached the opposite parties to pay the said amount, but they refused to do so. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2. Notices of the complaint were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their separate written statements and also tendered some documents in evidence. However, later on, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties and as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them.

   The opposite party No.1 has pleaded in his written reply that the present complaint has been filed before this Forum after two years of purchase of the above said machine and not even single complaint got registered with the opposite party No.1 by the complainant with regard to any technical defect in the above said Paddy Transplanter machine. The complainant is unnecessarily impleading the name of wife of Manpreet Singh responsible person of the opposite party No.1 as she is having no concern whatsoever with the company and she is not even a Director of the company. The complainant has not explained as what is the problem in the performance of the machine except that it has been a failure which is a patently false allegation because the machine in question was allowed to be sold in the market by the State Government after thorough examination and practical usage of the machine, carried out by the technical experts. On examination by experts, the machine was found to be quite effective and the performance of the machine was found to be good. After approving the machine of the opposite party No.1 by the State Government, the Director of the opposite party No.1 invited farmers to see the demonstrations of the working of machine being conducted at various places. The complainant attended two demonstrations and himself planted paddy using the demo machine of the company at two places and after being satisfied with the performance, he decided to book the machine as it was found to be better than machines of other manufacturers. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that it is necessary to adhere to the specifications, recommended by Punjab Agriculture University, Ludhiana as far as the plantation of paddy is concerned and particular form of mat type nursery is required to be used for effective usage and best performance of the machine. The complainant has never approached the opposite party No.1 with any kind of complaint or technical defect in the machine. The machine in question carried two years warranty from the date of purchase of the above said machine and the company has never backed out from the commitment of providing service and warranty on the machine sold. The complainant has preferred to make complaints to Police and approached this Forum just to blackmail and secure undue monetary gain from the opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 sold number of machines in the State and about 30 machines have been sold in Bathinda only which are working very well and the performance of the machines have provided better returns to the farmers using them. Further, some farmers have specifically given certificates regarding the performance of the machine. The opposite party No.1 has further pleaded that the complainant is not consumer as he purchased the said machine for renting it out for commercial purposes. The opposite party No.1 is ready and willing to give demonstration of the machine at any stage and the allegation of the complainant are false.

3. The opposite party No.2 in his written reply has pleaded that some complaints were received from the farmers about the Paddy Transplanters, so the opposite party No.2 has constituted 3 expert members committee to inquire the matter who after visiting the fields of the farmers, have given their report that the most of Paddy Transplanters were not working as per specifications and thereafter, they submitted their report to the higher authorities. The opposite party No.2 has further pleaded that the complaints of the farmers were submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda for necessary action according to law, and he has no knowledge about the further proceedings of the case. The opposite party No.2 has denied that the duty of department of Agriculture is to help the farmers, to provide technical guidance and to provide subsidy on inputs and implements etc. The complainant has purchased the equipment directly from the firm on his will. The department has given subsidy to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and the Government has approved Rs.50,000/- as additional compensation to the farmers on the recommendations of the Committee constructed by the Government. The complainant has been paid Rs.1,00,000/- as subsidy amount and Rs.50,000/- as compensation.

4. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

5. Arguments led by the complainant heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on the allurement of the opposite party No.2, he purchased Paddy Transplanter Machine for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, sold by the opposite party No.1 vide bill/invoice dated 10.06.2009 and the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt Nos.1303 and 1207 and subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid by the opposite party No.2. The above said Paddy Transplanter proved failure in the fields and the complainant and other agriculturalists who purchased this machine had suffered an irreparable loss. The opposite party No.2 inspected the fields of the complainant and other agriculturalists and prepared exhaustive report about the failure of the said Paddy Transplanter and submitted the report dated 20.06.2009 to Govt. An FIR was lodged with the Police and the criminal case is also pending against the opposite party No.1 i.e. Gagandeep Kaur and Manpreet Singh for fraud and cheating. The complainant had transplanted paddy in 5 acres and the plants vanished within two days. In this way, the complainant has suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 7,50,000/- i.e. loss on account of paddy crop for 30 acres i.e. 3,50,000/-; plant of paddy Rs. 50,000/-; labour and oil consumed Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of machinery Rs. 2,50,000/- and the opposite parties are liable to pay the same.

7. The opposite party No. 2 has pleaded in para No. 4 of written reply that the 3 expert member's committee was constituted to hold the inquiry. The relevant portion is reproduced as under :-

“That due to receiving some complaints from the farmers about the Paddy Transplanters, the opposite party No. 2 has constituted a 3 expert member's committee to inquire the matter. After visiting the fields, the committee given the report that the most of Paddy Transplanter were not working as per specifications. After that, the report was suabmitted to the higher authorities. It is also submitted that the complaints of the farmers were submitted to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda for necessary action according to the law.”

The opposite party No. 2 has not produced the copy of report submitted by 3 expert member's, as stated by him. However, a perusal of report Ex. R-5 submitted by Additional Director Gen. Police Crime, Punjab, Chandigarh to The Chairperson, Punjab State Women's Commission, Chandigarh, reveals that an inquiry was conducted and it was found that opposite party No. 1 has sold about 100 machines in the State of Punjab out of which 30 machines have been sold in District Bathinda only. On receiving complaints from 22 farmers regarding technical defects and charging of higher rate, Chief Agriculture Officer, Bathinda, has constituted a three members committee. The said committee submitted a report after checking the machine that the said machines were below the specifications and were sold on higher rate. On the basis of this report, a case has been registered against opposite party No 1. The Additional Director Gen. Police has opined in his report Ex. R-5 that after perusal of reports of various authorities, it has been found that the reason behind not giving complete performance by the machine is the lack of proper training to the farmers. The Government has kept Rs. 20.00 Lacs for the training of farmers and this responsibility was given to Director, Agricultural Department who could not manage to provide training to the farmers due to some reasons. It has also been mentioned in the said report that Agricultural Department has confiscated (zabat). the security of Rs. 20.00 Lacs to the said firm i.e. opposite party No. 1. In the end of the said report, the said officer has opined that if the farmers have any complaint against opposite party No. 1 regarding Paddy Transplanters, they can get the case registered in Consumer Court/Civil Court.”

8. Thus a perusal of above said report reveals that complainant purchased Paddy Transplanter vide Ex. C-1 from opposite party No. 1 to the complainant on the recommendations of opposite party No. 2. The Paddy Transplanter was tested by the committee headed by Head Deptt. of Farm Power & Machinery and Joint Director Agriculture (Engg.) for Director Agriculture, Punjab, as per Test Report of Farm Machinery Testing Centre, Department of Farm Power & Machinery, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana vide Ex. R-2.

   The relevant portion of this report is as under :-

ABOUT THIS REPORT

General :This report gives findings of important tests carried on the machine.

For the User :It should help him to decide about its suitability for his requirements.

For the Manufacturer: It can give clues to improve upon its design.

For Quality Marking:The quality marking department can use this report as Agencies one of the guidelines for quality marking.

Supplier:

M/s Nua Seed Private Ltd., Sandhu Tower, BXX-3369, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.

Tested Conducted by:

Farm Machinery Testing Centre, Department of Power & Machinery, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana-141004, Punjab, India.

NUA Seed Paddy Transplanter

Nua Seed Paddy Transplanter (Chinese make) was submitted by M/s Nua Seed Pvt. Ltd, Sandhu Tower, BXX-3369, Gurdev Nagar, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana for the issue of status report based upon 2 hr. testing vide memo No.258/19-42/Engg dated 19.03.2009 issued by Director of Agriculture, Punjab. It is a self propelled, riding type, 8 row machine operated by a 4.0 KW diesel engine. The machine consists of an engine, power transmission system, seat for operator, main frame and rice transplanting tray, float and four pairs of transplanting units. It has only one lugged traction (front) wheel and the weight of the machine rests on the float at the time of transplanting. For transplantation the front lugged wheel is replaced by pneumatic wheels and two small wheels are fixed at the rear of the float to support the weight of the machine. Power from the engine is transmitted to front traction wheel through gear train and to the transmission housing of transplanting unit through universal shaft.

Test Procedure:

There is no BIS code for testing the paddy transplanter to issue status of the machine based upon 2 hrs testing. Thus the test procedure was formulated for testing the paddy transplanter in the laboratory as well as in the puddled field.

Selection:

The machine was not selected by the staff of testing centre. However, the manufacturer claimed the sample to be representative of their production/supply model.

Specifications:

The manufacturer supplied very brief specifications. The important specifications measured/observed by the Testing Centre are given in Table1.

Laboratory Tests

The machine was evaluated in laboratory by operating the machine loaded with nursery on leveled ground by lifting the planting unit. The machine was physically inspected for its various features. Transport test was also conducted on a pucca and kucha road to check the performance of transport wheels and its speed.

It was observed that cutting of mat was good. There was no clogging of fingers. Rotating components were covered. Machine had the feature of operator seat adjustment ranging from 13 to 30.5 cm. The machine transportation speed was 7.71 km/h and performance of transport wheel was satisfactory.”

8. The Paddy Transplanter proved failure as it could not meet the specifications. The three members committee has opined, as mentioned in Ex. R-5, that the Paddy Transplanters/machines supplied by opposite party No. 1 were not upto the mark. The complainant has been suffering without any fault on his part. As discussed above, the Government has given Rs. 20.00 Lacs for the training of the farmers which could not be managed and provided by Director, Agricultural Department. In the investigation report Ex- R-5 it has not been mentioned that there was no technical defect in the Paddy Tranplanters rather it has been specifically mentioned that if the farmers have any complaint regarding Paddy Transplanters supplied by opposite party No. 1, they can file complaint before Consumer Forum. Moreover, as per Ex. R-24, the Chief Agriculture Officer has paid Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant wherein it has been clearly mentioned that “compensation on account of paddy crop damaged due to Paddy Transplanter.” Thus, this receipt itself is proof of failure of Paddy Transplanter.

9. As per bill Ex. C-1, the cost of Paddy Transplanter is Rs. 2,35,000/- . The complainant has paid Rs. 1.00 Lac in cash vide receipt Ex. C-2. Rs. 1.00 Lacs subsidy was provided by the Government as per Ex. R-23. On the bill Ex. C-1 an amount of Rs. 15,000/- has been shown as pending payment/balance and the opposite party No. 1 has also stated in para No. 3 on merits in his written reply that complainant has not paid the total cost of the machine and Rs. 15,000/- is yet to be paid. The complainant in para No. 6 of his complaint has prayed for compensation on account of loss to paddy crop for 30 acres whereas in para No. 5 of his complaint he

   has mentioned that he transplanted paddy in 5 acres. As per Ex. R-24, the complainant has already received Rs. 50,000/- from Chief Agriculture Officer being compensation on account of damage to paddy crop due to Paddy Transplanter. The cost of machinery in the complaint has been mentioned as Rs. 2,50,000/- whereas as per bills Ex. C-1 the cost of machinery is Rs. 2,35,000/-. Out of Rs. 2,35,000/-, Rs. 1.00 Lac has been paid by the Department of Agriculture through cheque No.497331 dated 29-03-2010 vide receipt Ex. R-23, Rs. 15,000/- is pending and the balance i.e. Rs. 1,20,000/- was paid by the complainant. Since the complainant has already received the compensation on account of damaged to paddy crop due to Paddy Transplanter, he is entitled for the refund of its cost and compensation for harassment.

10. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 25,000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No. 1 and dismissed qua opposite party No. 2. The complainant is directed to return the Paddy Transplanter to opposite party No. 1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant and Rs. 1,00,000/- to the concerned department i.e. Department of Agriculture, from which it was received, within 30 days from the date of receipt of Paddy Transplanter from the complainant.

    The compliance of this order as a whole be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case of non-compliance, the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- will carry interest @9% P.A. from the date of institution of this complaint till realization and the opposite party No. 1 will also return the amount of subsidy i.e. 1.00 Lac to the concerned department with interest @9% P.A.

     

12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

Pronounced :

13-10-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member