West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/27/2013

Sri Pranab Kr. Mahata - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pro. of Bidisha Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

29 Jan 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complainant Case No.27/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 29/01/2014                            

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. A. K. Dutta, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                : Mr. S. Bhattacharyay & Mr. P.S. Dasmahapatra, Advocate.

          

    Sri Pranab Kr. Mahata, S/o late Hrisikesh Mahata, Vill. Parashidanga, P.O. Chottosukjora,

    P.S. Belpahari, Dist.  Paschim Medinipur………………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Pro. of Bidisha Enterprises at Raghunathpur, P. O. & P.S.Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur
2. The Branch Manager, Jhargram Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd.,   

      P. O. & P.S. Jhargram, Dist. Paschim Medinipur………………Ops.

 

          Case of the complainant Sri Pranab Kr. Mahata, in short, is that he purchased a Power Tiller Tractor from the Op under agreement with Rural Development Bank on 21/12/11.  It is alleged that while use of the said power tiller there appears certain defect disclosed in the petition of complaint.  On report, Op took same mechanical arrangement upon receipt of quotation money from the complainant but ultimately the power tiller remains in the same defective condition.  Thus, the complainant claim in his case that the Op made some unlawful gain through quotation and as such they are liable to deficiency in service.  Stating the case complainant prays compensation of          50,000/- (Fifty thousand) only with supply of new model power tiller in place of the defective tiller.

         The Op No.2 admitted the purchase of power tiller which exposes some defect.  Accordingly     the complain was sent to Op. No.1Bidisha Enterprise for replacement of certain parts.  But it is a fact that the warranty period has been expired on 06/02/13.  According to Op No.2 there was no delay in refer in the case of defect to the op No.1 and as such no deficiency in service should be held against this Op No.2.

Contd…………….P/2

 

 

 

- ( 2 ) - 

            The Op No.1 contested the case by filing written objection stating that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  There is specific clause for relief to be available from the jurisdiction in Kerala.  On different occasion this Op rendered necessary services to the safe and correct functioning of the power tiller in presence of the complainant.  Very specifically stated by this Op. No.1 that due to wrong handling of the power tiller there was held crack.  For this reason the complainant is not entitled to get replacement.  Thus, the claim of the complainant should be dismissed.

             Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues :

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present form?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action?
3. If the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

 

Decision with reasons :

Issue Nos.1 to 3:

            All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other.  Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that admittedly the power tiller was purchased through Op bank under proper agreement but when the power tiller is detected gross defect the same has not been repaired by the Op. No.1 in respect of repeated demands from the end of the complainant.  On mechanical examination by some out side mechanic it has been found that the power tiller was a second hand used and the same has been supplied by painting as new.  During warranty period the defect arose and as such the Op. No.1 is bound to replace the same.

             The Ld. Advocate for the Op. on the other hand submitted that the power tiller was duly delivered to the complainant after proper tested by expart mechanic but due to wrong use of the same became crack.  Even so the Op. No.1 sent a mechanic for free replacement but the complainant was not agreed to replace the same but demanded for a new power tiller which is not entitled to.  In such a case the Op. is agreed to solve the problem with replacement of necessary parts but no response has been given by the complainant.  So, there is no alternative from the end of the Op No.1.

             Upon due consideration of both parties it transpires that the complainant is not willing to get repairing work as proposed by the Op. No.1 does not agreeable to the complainant the complainant rather demands new power tiller in place of alleged defective power tiller purchase by him.  Under this fact and circumstances we are in the opinion that since there is no terms and conditions in the matter of purchase of the power tiller in such a case of replacement of the entire materials that is power tiller, the prayer of the complainant cannot be considered favourable in to.  The Forum can do

Contd…………….P/3

 

 

- ( 3 ) -

is that for causing necessary repair work in respect of the said alleged power tiller purchased by the complainant.  Upon this angle the case of the complainant, may be allowed.

                In the light of the aforesaid discussion it is held and decided that the complainant has cause of action to file this case and the same is maintainable against the Op. No.1 to the extent that they shall render necessary repairing work in respect of the power tiller purchased by the complainant Sri Pranab Kumar Mahata within a reasonable time.

                Thus, the issues are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence

                              It is ordered

                                                  that the case be and the same is allowed in part on contest without cost. There is no order against the Op. No.2 Jhargram Co-opt. Agriculture & Rural Dev. Bank Ltd.

                The complainant is entitled to get repairing of his power tiller by an expart mechanic suggested by the Op. No.1 within thirty days from this date of order.

                 The complainant do get litigation cost of 5,000/- (Five thousand) only payable by the Op. No.1 within the said period.

                Op. No.1 Bidisha Enterprises is hereby directed to cause necessary repairing work in respect of the power tiller purchased by the complainant Sri Pranab Kr. Mahata within thirty days from the date of order failing which the complainant will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of law.

 

Dic. & Corrected by me

             

         President                                             Member                                                President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                           Paschim Medinipur.