C.C. No.392/2022

Madhusmita Mohanty,

D/o. Bauribandhu Barik,

At- Ambadarada,

P.O.- Redhua,

Via- Nalibar,

P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur. ……… Complainant

1. Proprietor,

M/S New Durga Motors,

At- Durga Bazar,

P.O./P.S./Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

2. Branch Manager,

M/S New Durga Motors,

At- Sarani,

P.O./P.S.- Tirtol,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

3. Area Manager, Swaraj Division,

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

FES Swaraj Division,

Plot No.388, Ground Floor,

Back side of Axis Bank,

Gautam Nagar, Vibekananda Marg,

Near BMC Corporation Office,

Bhubaneswar- 751014.

4. Branch Manager,

Mahindra Finance Ltd.

At- Sahoo Complex, 2^nd Floor,

Bijayachandrapur, Near IFFCO Chhaka,

P.S.- Paradip,

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur.

5. Regional Head,

Head Office, Swaraj Division,

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.,

Phase-IV, Industrial Area,

S.A.S. Nagar (Mohali),

Punjab- 160055.…..… Opposite parties

For Complainant………..Mr. D. Khatua & Associates

For O.P. No.3 & 5………..Mr. S.P. Das, Advocate

ORDER BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT- MR. P.K. PADHI:

                                                                                        JUDGMENT

            Complainant has filed this consumer complaint U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 seeking following reliefs;

            “Direct the opposite parties to return the down payment of Rs.9,70,000/- and opposite party no.4 be direct not to take installment and cancel the loan agreement and pay compensation Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss in business, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.35,000/- towards cost of litigation”.

            The brief fact of the case of complainant is that, the complainant purchased a Swaraj Pro Combine 7060 Harvester from opposite party No.1 being financed by opposite parties loan of Rs.15,00,000/- on 15.10.2022. Due to utter disappointment, the harvesting machine did not work for an hour in the field and did not cut the crops properly and the engine did not take pick up for cutting and the complainant lodged complaint before the opposite parties No.1 & 2 and they send mechanics for repairing but till now the mechanic did not repair the harvester machine and the machine is lying idle in the field and could not be able to earn a single pie till date. The complainant seeks that opposite parties No.1 & 2 to return the down payment and take return back the harvester vehicle and the complainant did not want the defective harvester machine any more as it did not work from the very beginning and the complainant has not faith on the machine and giving losses to complainant.

            Opposite parties No.3 & 5 have filed their written version stating as under;

            The complainant reported the issue with the harvester on 25.11.2022 and the harvester was inspected on 26.11.2022 by a team of experts and it was observed that the harvester was being operated in unprofessional manner due to which the complainant faced the issues with the harvester. The said harvester was tested after resolving the issue and it operated as intended. The complainant also signed satisfaction note after being fully satisfied with the performance of the harvester which was taken after completion of repairing but still the vehicle did not run and the complainant immediately protested and filed the present consumer complaint. The complainant purchased the harvester for earning money from offering its services for customer hiring to others, however the complainant failed to comprehend the expenses of using the maintaining the harvester. When the complainant could not manage the expenses of the harvester, her plan to earn profit failed and she tried to return the harvester. That after the complainant failed in the scheme to return the harvester to recover from the financial strain, the complainant filed this false complaint to wriggle out her financial difficulties.

            The vehicle went out of order from the very beginning of purchase, which could not be rectified by opposite parties to the satisfaction of complainant and the machine is lying idle. We found no steps taken by opposite parties to rectify the defective product to run during the warranty period even after filing of consumer complaint.

            We therefore direct the opposite party No.5 to take back the vehicle, which has not run for a single day even for half an hour and direct the opposite party No.3 to refund 75% of the margin/caution down payment money i.e. Rs.7,27,500/- as the complainant has also to bear and liable to pay for purchasing the vehicle without thorough enquiry about the product and no machinery/vehicle after sale from show room is of same value and the rest amount shall be adjusted towards depreciation cost. The opposite parties No.1 & 2 being the dealer have also failed in their duty to provide service, for which the opposite parties No.1 & 2 shall pay cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- to complainant. The opposite parties No.3 & 4 being the financer has to relax the interest and recover the principal from opposite party No.5. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is disposed of.   

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 19^th Sept.,2024.