DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 85/2015
Date of Institution : 06.05.2015
Date of Decision : 27.07.2015
Bharpur Singh, aged about 56 years, son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of Village Gaju Gali, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
…Complainant
Versus
Standard Corporation India Ltd. (Combine Division), Standard Chowk, Barnala, through its Managing Director.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Maninder Singh Counsel for complainant.
Sh. Anuj Mohan Counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY Ms. VANDNA SIDHU, MEMBER):
Complaint No. 85/2015 is filed by complainant Bharpur Singh. As per complaint complainant purchased a Tractor Driven Combine Harvester Model Standard TSC-513 with Thrasher Drum 1295 mm and Cutter Bar 4267 mm bearing Chassis No. SCTSC513C1410010 from the opposite party for Rs. 7,10,000/- vide bill/invoice No. 1058. It was purchased by the complainant on 27.3.2014 for earning his livelihood to make both the ends of his family meet. However, the name of the complainant has wrongly been mentioned on above stated bill. Complainant faced many problems by this Combine especially when the same was put to use for harvesting the wheat crop 2014 as it has a number of manufacturing defects from the date of purchase itself, such as fan drums etc., and cutter is also defective due to which the said Combine was throwing wheat out alongwith straw/waste material causing huge loss to the complainant. On the complaint of the complainant, opposite party checked the said Combine by his foreman and tried to remove the defects, but all in vain. The foreman of the opposite party assured the complainant to replace the fan, but the same has not been changed so far. Complainant suffered a great financial loss. Complainant took the said Combine to the premises of the opposite party for removing the defects in the month of May 2014 and the said Combine return to the complainant by the opposite party after eight days. When the said Combine was again put to use for harvesting paddy crop the said Combine gave the same trouble to the complainant and the air fan of the said Combine was broken on 22.10.2014 and the Combine remained out of use. Complainant intimated to the opposite party through FAX, but the opposite party failed to take any step for removing the manufacturing defects. So by this way complainant suffered financial loss more than Rs. 4,00,000/- in the harvest season of wheat and paddy crop and even till today he is suffering huge financial loss for no fault on his part. The said Combine still lying off road. The opposite party has delivered a defective Combine to the complainant intentionally, so inordinate delay in replacement of the defective parts of the Combine and failure in removing the defects from the same is deficiency in service resulting out of negligence/legal irresponsible attitude of the opposite party. Complainant borrowed loan for purchasing for the above stated Combine and he has to pay interest to the Financer continuously. About this problem complainant filed complaint No. 127 of 2015 on 19.3.2015 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, but the same has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 30.3.2015 with permission to file fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the proper Forum/Court having its jurisdiction. It is further submitted that on 10.3.2015 opposite party flatly refused to remove the manufacturing defect or the exchange the defective Combine with a new one which caused a great mental agony and tension to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is file seeking
the following reliefs.
To take back the defective Combine and to exchange it with a new one having no manufacturing defect and to refund the amount alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
To pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental agony and harrassment suffered by the complainant.
To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
Jurisdiction:-
Complainant purchased the Combine in question from the opposite party at Barnala and the office of the opposite party situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, so this Forum has the jurisdiction to try and decide this complaint.
2. Upon notice opposite party filed its version and taken legal objections interalia. First of all it is submitted that the above stated Tractor Driven Combine purchased for commercial purpose, so by this way complainant is not consumer. Secondly it is pertinent to mention here that before the delivery of a new Combine to a customer, a complete checkup of the Combine is done by the team of technical experts, therefore, there is no scope of having any technical or manufacturing defect in the Combine. Complaint is false, malicious and it is filed with malafide intention and falls under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. On merits, it is submitted by the opposite party that the Combine is used for wheat and paddy crops. At the time of harvesting the wheat crop there are different thrasher, basket, treys, drums, cutter etc., used. At the time of selling the above stated Combine all the above stated articles were given to the complainant. On 24.4.2014 the employee of the opposite party went to Village Gaju Gaji and checked the said Combine and the complainant has fully satisfied with the service which was provided by the opposite party, on the same day complainant signed a satisfaction note/letter in regard of service which was given by the opposite party. The opposite party provided free service of the said Combine as per warranty policy of the said Combine. On 29.5.2014 opposite party provided service at the service station of standard corporation India Limited at Barnala and complainant again signed and gave satisfaction note/letter to opposite party. It is also necessary to submit that there is no manufacturing defect in above stated Combine. It is the bad handling of the Combine by the complainant which cannot be said a manufacturing defect. The opposite party has always provided the best and proper service to the complainant. Moreover, opposite party gave free service to the complainant after the expiry of warranty period and to this effect a letter dated 30.12.2014 was sent to the complainant by the opposite party, so it is denied that the complainant has suffered inconvenience and loss of earning due to said Combine. Complaint may kindly be dismissed.
4. In order to prove his case complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.C-1 i.e. Original bill dated 27.3.2014, Ex.C-2 is original letter dated 28.4.2014, Ex.C-3 original letter dated 29.9.2014, Ex.C-4 original letter dated 30.10.2014, Ex.C-5 report of foreman Baljit Singh of dated 6.12.2014, Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-10 original letters, Ex.C-11 report of foreman, Ex.C-12 letter dated 30.12.2014, Ex.C-13 certified copy of order dated 30.3.2015, Ex.C-14 to Ex.C-20 copy of receipts of fax, Ex.C-21 copy of receipt of toll plaza, Ex.C-22 affidavit of complainant.
5. To rebut the case of the complainant opposite party has also tendered in evidence Ex.O.P1 affidavit of Joginder Singh, Ex.O.P2 affidavit of Baljinder Singh, Ex.O.P3 copy of satisfaction letter dated 24.4.2014, Ex.O.P4 copy of satisfaction letter dated 29.5.2014, Ex.O.P5 and Ex.O.P6 copy of satisfaction letter dated 29.9.2014 and 1.10.2014, Ex.O.P7 copy of letter Ref No. SCIL/CD/Service Department/2014-15/19 and closed the evidence.
6. After hearing both the counsels of the parties and pursing the entire record minutely, the above stated complaint falls under Section 2 (i) (d) because as per complaint the complainant purchased the alleged Tractor Driven Combine Harvester for earning his livelihood.
7. As per CLT 2015 Page 615 State Commission Rajasthan Jaipur in case titled Mahendra Singh Poswal Vs Race Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2 (1) (d) Crane-Commercial Purpose- Held-Complainant is engaged in loading, unloading and other allied activity for which Crane is used- Earning livelihood from these activities- It is cannot be said that is using the Crane for any commercial purpose- Complaint maintainable (Para 5).
8. So the above stated complaint is maintainable because complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the legal objection of the opposite party in regard of complainant not a consumer of opposite party is baseless. It is also a very worthiness fact that since the date of purchase the alleged equipment i.e. Combine started to give complications during the time of work to the complainant that's why complainant has to come this Forum. No doubt due to complications on the alleged Combine complainant filed one complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Froum, Gurdasspur, but the same has been dismissed as withdrawn due to having no jurisdiction. And complainant knocked the door of the above stated Hon’ble Forum on 6.5.2015, because defects were not removed by the opposite party time to time, though opposite party provided its services time to time to the complainant. But opposite party did not replace fan, drums and cutter which have the bone of contention to both the parties. It is a admitted fact that complainant gave Ex. O.P3, O.P5 and O.P6 respectively, but complainant is also not a technical person, and he faced problems by the alleged Combine time to time, so the satisfaction letters which were given to the opposite party are useless. And opposite party should not save its skin by tendering Ex.O.P3, O.P5 and O.P6. Moreover, Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10 proves complications of the alleged Combine which were faced by the complainant time to time and insptie of Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-8, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10, opposite party failed to find out and remove the main defect in the above stated Combine. It is pertinent to mention here that the alleged Combine is purchased by the complainant after borrowing loan, so it is difficult for a person to earn his livelihood and pay the above stated loan time to time by such type of defected Combine. No doubt the warranty period for service of the Combine has expired as per Ex.C-12. But it is a costly Combine and complainant is a layman and it is too difficult for complainant to face financial loss by the source of income.
9. We are also equipped with the judgment reported in 2006 (2) CLT 150 Supreme Court, in case titled Maruti Udyog Limited Vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr. held that only the defective parts can be replaced, but not the whole vehicle.
10. So, in view of our above discussion, the present complaint is maintainable and the same is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace the defected parts of the alleged Combine, so that the complainant in future could not face any problem. There is no order as to costs or compensation. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file its due completion be consigned to records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
27th Day of July, 2015.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
