SRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS,PRESIDENT:-
The Complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant who is a farmer having I.D. No.KEN-83684 allotted by the Agriculture Deptt., Govt. of Odisha and is also in possession of a Kisan Credit card. The complainant who is a farmer was maintaining his family by cultivation by raising different crops throughout the year. According to the petition, the complainant, being motivated by the Agent of OP No.1 agreed to purchase a Power Tiller bearing Model No.PEM140D1, the price of which was Rs.1,94,500/-. The complainant also was provided with cash discount of Rs.4500/-, the rate was finalized at Rs.1,89,900/-. As per the terms and conditions, the OP No.1 delivered the power tiller to the complainant on dtd.07.07.2017. As the complainant agreed with the proposal of OP No.1 the complainant got back refund of Rs.1900/- and issued Money Receipt amounting to Rs.1,88,000/-. Thus, the complainant brought the power tiller at his own cost, brought it to his house on dtd.14.07.17 having Engine No.250439 and Chassis No.100590. The warranty was also issued for three years from the date of purchase. On the next day at the time of demonstration, the power tiller did not work properly. Thereafter the mechanic came and assured the complainant to rectify the defects within three days. Subsequently, the complainant went to the OP No.1 and requested him to send the mechanic to rectify the defect, to which OP No.1 assured the complainant to send the mechanic on dtd.18.07.17. Subsequently, on dtd.22.07.17 the mechanic of OP No.1 came and after proper checking said that there was manufacturing defect as there was starting problem. Thus, the power tiller purchased by the complainant was lying idle from the date of purchase having manufacturing defect. The OP No.1, with the false promise of rectifying the defect only mislead the complainant for which the complainant consulted his Lawyer in the month of August,2017 and served a Pleader notice to the Ops. In this way one year passed but no fruitful result was achieved. The OP No.1 also never intimated the Agriculture Deptt.,Govt. of Odisha for release of subsidy amount of Rs.75,000/- in favour of the complainant. Thus, due to inaction of the OP No.1 the complainant was deprived of getting Rs.75,000/- as subsidy. So, being hopeless with the action of Op No.1 the complainant filed this case praying for relief as mentioned in the prayer.
2. On the otherhand, the Ops entered appearance, filed written version submitting therein that the petition filed by the complainant is not maintainable. The Ops admitted that the complainant is a farmer but denied that OP No.1 motivated the complainant to purchase the power tiller. The Ops also disputed regarding the discount of Rs.4600/-. The Ops admitted that on the next day of the delivery of the power tiller, the Ops deputed the mechanic for demonstration but as the power tiller did not function properly, the complainant has to wait for about four days till dtd.18.07.17 for the mechanic of the Ops to visit the house of the complainant. The Ops denied that there was manufacturing defect and the power tiller did not function properly. The Ops also admitted about the receipt of Lawyer’s notice but denied about the negotiation for replacement of the power tiller. According to the Ops under the D.B.T Regulation, the subsidy amount will go directly to the beneficiary and the Dealer-OP No.1 has no role over the same.
3. According to the Ops the complainant used adulterated oil and fuel for which the power tiller did not properly work and the Ops have got no role due to the non-functioning of the power tiller. The power tiller was sold in perfect condition and there was no manufacturing defect. So to harass the OPs, such a false case have been foisted by the complainant to get undue advantage from the Ops. On the above pleading of the parties, the following issues are framed.
i) whether the complainant is a consumer,
ii) whether the complainant is entitled go get any relief in this case.
4. After prolonged and protracted legal battle for the last two years, on dtd.05.02.2020 the complainant filed an Affidavit that since the date of purchase of the power tiller from 2017 till dtd.23.01.2020 the technician of the Ops finally repaired the power tiller and now the power tiller is running properly. The complainant sustained huge monetary loss by frequently coming to the Consumer Court in this connection. So, the complainant filed this Affidavit praying to grant Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. Copy of this Affidavit was served to the Ops, who also filed objection denying the averment made ion the Affidavit. In the counter affidavit the Ops stated that change the 14 HP Engine to 12 HP at a cost of Rs.40,000/- and the new engine cost is Rs.1,20,000/-. Therefore, the Ops’s submission that the Affidavit filed by the complainant have got no merit and should be rejected.
5. Heard both the parties at length in the matter. Considering the entire materials before us, it is crystal clear that there was no after sale service and this is a clear case of deficiency of service by the OPs for which the complainant suffered both mental as well as pecuniary loss. Further the OPs, after sale should have arranged i.e. worked out modalities for getting the subsidy amount of Rs.75,000/- to which the complainant is entitled. The complainant, being a farmer should have been informed about the subsidy amount given by the Govt. in the Agriculture Deptt. Besides that it is clear from the case record that the Ops were never prompt in attending the complainant about the defect in the power tiller and to comply the same at the earlier. Taking into consideration all such lapses on the part of the Ops, it would be just and proper to allow compensation, as well as litigation expenses as for no fault of the complainant he was forced to come to the Consumer Court and file this unnecessary litigation. This action of the Ops dtd.23.01.2020(Xerox copy) by virtue of which the power tiller was repaired after which affidavit have been filed by the complainant that his power tiller have been repaired by the Ops soon have been done much earlier. Had this being done by the Ops, should after filing of the case, the complainant would not have been in a position to ask for compensation by filing the affidavit. So, this is a clear case of negligence and improper service after sale by the Ops. Hence, it is ordered:-
The case is disposed of on contest between the parties. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand)only towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) towards litigation cost to the complainant within a period of one month hence, failing which the complainant is at liberty to get the same through the process of Court.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 19th day of February,2020.
