Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/176

Amar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sadhanwalia Equipments - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Dhillon

07 Nov 2016

ORDER

         DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        176

Date of Institution :   24.06.2016

Date of Decision :     07.11.2016

 

Amar Singh s/o Sh Vazir Chand r/o Village Khanpur Khurd, District Halwar, Rajasthan.                                                                                      .....Complainant

Versus

Sadhanwalia Equipments for Advance Farming Technology, Sadhu Market Kotkapura Road, Backside Jubliee Cinema, Faridkot.                           ...OP

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:       Sh J S Dhillon, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to replace the defective Handy Reaper Rooftech with new or to return the whole amount of Rs.18,000/- with interest alongwith Rs.4000/-as labour charges and Rs.50,000/-for crop loss and for also directing OP to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by him besides Rs.11,000/-as litigation expenses.

2                            Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP that Handy Reaper Rooftech is of standard Company and bears guarantee for five years, complainant purchased Handy Reaper Rooftech vide bill dated 27.03.2016 from OP, but to his great surprise, said reaper was defective one and it did not start and was not working properly. Complainant immediately approached OP and brought this fact to his notice and requested to replace the defective reaper and on this, OP assured to replace the same within few days, but OP did not replace the same. Complainant again approached OP with request to replace the defective reaper and after 10 days, OP sent defective part through Courier but did not send his mechanic and after 15  days, complainant had to get it changed through private mechanic of Jaipur and paid him Rs.4000/-as repair charges. During this period his fully ripened wheat crop was damaged and he had to suffer loss of Rs.30,000/-. Complainant harvested his crop through labour and spent  more than Rs.40,000/-as labour charges. Complainant suffered huge loss due to OP as OP neither removed the defect from said reaper nor replaced the same. Complainant made many requests to OPs regarding Reaper in question but OP did not do the needful and all his efforts to get it repaired or replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OP, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and due to this complainant has prayed for seeking direction to Op to pay Rs 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the complaint.

3                         The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.07.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                On receipt of the notice, OP filed reply through which he has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. OP further asserted through preliminary objections that complainant is not the consumer of answering OP as Reaper in question was purchased by complainant for commercial purpose and therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. It is averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts from this Fourm as complaint is false, frivolous and is filed only to harass the answering OP. Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct  to file the present complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. It is further averred that complainant has not used the machine properly and carefully as per instructions of answering OP and that is why defect arose in said machine and it happened due to mishandling by complainant. OP has fully co-operated with complainant by sending new parts to him without checking the machine that whether it was defective or not. However, on merits he has denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too have been refuted being false and vexatious and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5                         Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and document Ex C-2 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                Ld Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Nirmal Singh as Ex.OP-1 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

7                                     We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                   Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that on assurance of OP that Handy Reaper Rooftech is of standard Company and bears guarantee for five years, complainant purchased the said Reaper from OP against proper bill, but to his great surprise, said reaper was defective as it did not start and was not working properly. Complainant approached OP and brought this fact to his notice and requested to replace the defective reaper and on this, OP assured to replace the same within few days, but OP did not do so. Complainant again approached OP with request to replace the defective reaper and after 10 days, OP sent new part through Courier but did not send his mechanic and after 15  days, complainant had to get it changed through private mechanic of Jaipur and  complainant paid him Rs.4000/-as repair charges. During this period his fully ripened wheat crop was damaged and he had to suffer loss of Rs.30,000/-. Complainant harvested his crop through labour and spent  more than Rs.40,000/- as labour charges. Complainant suffered huge loss due to OP as OP neither removed the defect from said reaper nor replaced the same. Despite repeated requests made by complainant for repair and replacement, OP did not do the needful and all his efforts to get it repaired or replaced bore no fruit and complainant has suffered great harassment and mental tension due to this act of OP, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP and due to this complainant has prayed for accepting the present complaint.

9                            To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and he has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant is not the consumer of OP as Reaper in question was purchased by complainant for commercial purpose and therefore, present complaint is not maintainable. It is further averred that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and he has suppressed the material facts from this Fourm as complaint is false, frivolous and is filed only to harass the answering OP. Complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct  to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP. It is further averred that complainant has not used the machine properly and carefully as per instructions of answering OP and due to this defect arose in said machine and it happened due to mishandling by complainant. OP has fully co-operated with complainant by sending new parts to him without checking the machine that whether it was defective or not. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

10                             After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that it is the admitted fact that complainant purchased the said Reaper from OP. To prove his pleading, complainant has produced on record copy of bill dated 27.03.2016, which proves that complainant is the consumer of OP. He has also reiterated his pleadings by placing on record his affidavit Ex C-1. Moreover, it is further admitted by OP that he sent some new parts to complainant on his complaint regarding defect in said reaper. Plea taken by OP that he has fully co-operated with complainant by sending him new parts, does not seem proper as it was the sole responsibility of seller to see and check that he has given the machine or article worthy of its use to its customer for the consideration received from him. It is admitted by the OP that on the complaint of complainant, they only sent new parts, but did not send any mechanic to repair the machine of complainant and complainant called mechanic at his own to replace the defective parts and to repair the machine and spent for it from his own pocket. It amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. OP has shown negligence in not providing proper service and in not effecting timely repair of reaper as it caused loss to him as complainant had to get harvested his ripened wheat crop from private labour besides suffering loss and harassment. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP.

11                                 We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint is hereby allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 07.11.2016

                   Member                          President

                    (P Singla)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)