BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

C.C.No.34 of 2017.

Date of Instt.:03.02.2017.

Date of Decision:07.06.2017

Sachdev Kumar s/o Sh.Rai Sahib r/o Gali No.5, Bhatta Colony, Fatehabad Tehsil & District Fatehabad.

..Complainant

     Versus

Sadhu Agro Industries Near Old Bus Stand, G.T.Road, Fatehabad through its proprietor.

..Opposite Party.

Before:        Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.           

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.                                                                           Smt.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   OP ex-parte.

ORDER

                     The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party with the averments that in the month of April, 2016 he had purchased a cultivator of 11 tines from the OP for a sum of Rs.19,500/- for cultivating the land and at the time of selling the said cultivator the OP had assured that the bill would be provided after the satisfaction of the complainant and also provide one year guarantee on the said product. It was also assured by the Op that in case any fault occurs during the guarantee period then the cultivator would either be replaced with new one or the cost thereof would be refunded.  It is further averred that said cultivator worked properly for some days but it started giving problems as it was not running properly due to non-fitting of its legs properly, therefore, the complainant approached the OP by visiting its shop on 28.05.2016 where one person of the family of the proprietor was present, therefore, he (complainant) lodged his complaint to that person. It has been further averred that the complainant had requested to the OP to get the same repaired and also to provide bill thereof. The OP kept the cultivator with it and asked the complainant to receive the same on 30.05.2016 but it had returned the same to the complainant on 04.06.2016 without repairing the same. The complainant again approached the OP to get the same repaired but it flatly refused and demanded Rs.5,000/- for repairing the cultivator and also refused to issue the bill of the product. It has been further averred that the OP had also mis-behaved with the complainant and also threatened to register a criminal case in case he visits the shop again. The complainant got served a legal notice upon the OP but all fell on deaf ears, therefore, the complainant got the cultivator repaired from another shop by spending a sum of Rs.3,000/-. The act and conduct of the OP clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, this complaint.

2.                          On notice, OP appeared before this Forum but did not file the reply to the complainant and even absented from this Forum lateron, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.03.2017.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1 beside document Annexure C1.

4.                The complainant has argued that the cultivator purchased by him was having manufacturing defect as it started giving problems even after some days of its purchase. Since the said product was having one year guarantee, therefore, the OP was bound either to get the same repaired or to refund the cost thereof but the OP refused to do so and even mis-behaved with the complainant. It has been further argued that the complainant got the cultivator repaired from Kamboj Agriculture Works by spending a sum of Rs.3,000/- and he drew the attention of this Forum towards certificate Annexure C1 wherein the engineer has clearly mentioned that due to manufacturing defect the cultivator cannot be repaired in all respect.

5.                Any consumer when he buys a new product he is under the impression that the same is bound to be mechanically perfect or that a brand new product would be defect free. A new product could be defected as well.  It could be that some errors are insignificant but there may be many others which substantially impair use of the product.  If the product is defective a consumer has a right to seek its replacement or refund of the price. Though the burden to prove the defect is on the consumer, yet it must be understood that consumer is not bound to pinpoint the precise nature of defects or its cause or source.  The warranty which is given for a product is a warranty for whole of the product and when it is found that the same does not perform properly the warranty would be taken to have been breached  even  if no individual part could be identified  as defective.  It is not always necessary for the consumer to give expert testimony though if he does so it will add to the weight of the evidence. In the present case the complainant has placed on file a certificate (Annexure C1) wherein the engineer has specifically mentioned that the cultivator cannot be repaired in all respect. A  consumer Forum  has however, to take into consideration consumer state of mind as well.  After all he had invested in the new product to buy peace of mind hoping that the same is dependable and trouble free.  In the present case it is clearly established that there is manufacturing defect in the cultivator and it is not in a position to be run in the fields as is evident through Annexure 1. The pleadings and contentions put forth by the complainant remained unrebutted as the Ops did not join the proceedings of the case and are exparte.   

7.                Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above, we allow this complaint and direct the OP  to refund the cost of the cultivator to the complainant i.e. Rs.19,500/- and Rs.3,000/- spent by him to get the same repaired subject to depositing of cultivator and its components to the OP. The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. Order of this forum be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings against the opposite parties under Section 25/27 of the Act.   Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:07.06.2017.

                                                              (Raghbir Singh)

                                                                   President,

(Ansuya Bishnoi) (R.S.Panghal)          Distt.Consumer Disputes

      (Member)       (Member)                Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.