C.F. CASE No.                    :  CC/10/28                                                                                                                                           

COMPLAINANT                  :           Didar Sk.

                                    S/o Late Sukubar Sk.

                                    Vill. Ballaldighi, P.O. Sri Mayapur,

                                    P.S. Nabadwip, Dist. Nadia.

• Vs  –

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP        :          Proprietor,

                                    Partha Saha,

                                    Sree Durga Machinery & Harware Stores,

                                    Vill. Bowbazar, P.O. Krishnagar

                                    P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.     

PRESENT                               :     SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY       PRESIDENT

                      :     SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA       MEMBER

                      :     SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL          MEMBER

DATE OF DELIVERY                                             

OF  JUDGMENT                    :          17^th September,  2010

:    J U D G M E N T    :

            In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 23.01.10 he purchased one Zenith WP – 30K petrol kerosene pump set from the OP at a price of Rs. 9,500/-.  At the time of purchase OP told him that the machine would consume one litre kerosene oil for running two hours, but actually to run the machine for one hour 1.3 litres of kerosene oil was required and the machine had defect also which was revealed by examining it by a mechanic.  Subsequently, it consumed 1 litre kerosene for running 20 minutes only.  He then met the OP and requested him to repair the machine, but to no effect.  On 10.02.10 he again met the OP with a request to take back it after deducting Rs. 1,000/- at which the OP declined.  At the time of purchase no warranty card was issued by the OP to this complainant.  Machine is now out of use.  So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.

            OP has filed a written version, inter alia, stating that the complainant purchased one Zenith WP-30K pump set from the OP who is a reseller of agricultural implements and machinery.  He further submits that he never stated to this complainant that the machine would run for two hours against consumption of one litre fuel nor the complainant informed him about the alleged defect of the machine.  This complainant never requested to send any mechanic for its repair nor even requested him to take back the machine after deducting Rs. 1,000/- from the total price amount.  It is his specific contention that the complainant purchased the machine / pump set against the sum of Rs. 9,500/- and he took delivery of the said pump set after being satisfied of its activity and verifying its capacity also.  No where in the petition of complaint it is stated by the complainant that the pump set did not serve irrigation purpose of the complainant.  Practically, this complainant has no cause of action to file this case.  So it is not maintainable in its present form and nature and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.

POINTS  FOR  DECISION

Point No.1:         Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?

Point No.2:          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION  WITH  REASONS

            Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.

            On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP along with annexed documents filed by the complainant it is available on record that this complainant purchased one Zenith WP-30K petrol/kerosene pump set from the OP at a price of Rs. 9,500/- on 23.01.10.  It is complainant’s case that at the time of purchase the OP told him that machine could run for 2 hours against consumption of 2 litres of kerosene oil, but in fact the machine consumed 1.3 litters of kerosene for running one hour only.  The machine was purchased on 23.01.10 and the present case was filed on 23.02.10, i.e., within 30 days since the date of purchase.  Besides this from the brochure submitted by the complainant we find from specifications of fuel consumption it is stated that for running one hour the machine requires 1 litre & 100 gms more petrol or kerosene oil.  So we find that the very complaint of the complainant is not a genuine one.  He has also stated that on examining the machine by a mechanic it was detected that the machine had inherent defect due to which it consumed more fuel than of its specification.  But actually comparing the fact of the complainant as stated in ‘Para – 4’ and the brochure we find that only 200 ml more oil was required to run the machine for one hour.  As in the brochure it is categorically stated that on consumption of 1.1 litres of petrol / kerosene the machine could run for one hour, so no question of stating by the OP does arise that by consumption of 1 litre kerosene oil the machine could run for 2 hours.  Regarding expert opinion no document is filed by the complainant to establish that the machine had inherent defect.  Besides this, in the petition of complaint it is not stated by him that the machine could not be used for irrigation purpose. 

Therefore, considering the facts of this case along with the oral and documentary evidences and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyer for the parties our considered view is that the complainant has not become able to prove his case.  So he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  In result the case fails.

            Hence,

Ordered,

            That the case, CC/10/28 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP without any cost.  

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.