Presented by:-
Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President.
Brief fact of this case:- This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant and her wife going to the OPs show room for purchasing the said complete combined Harvester Machine. These OPs are convinced and assuring him that the harverties can harvest approximately 01 acre of paddy field in one hour and give 5.7% grain saving per acre and it delivers clear and unbroker grain and that grain loss/breakage will be less than 1% and that it is capable of multi crop harvesting. It is also arranged by the OP side that it also track machine is engaged almost one year.
Thereafter given such types of assurance by the Op this going to purchase the said machine that is on 30.10.2020 by paying of Rs.1000000/- by cash out of 1750000/-and rest amount will be paid in different transaction by way of cheque and being the cheque nos. are described in the w/v but no amount mentioned in the complaint petition towards the cost vide Invoice date-30.10.2021 from the OP.
The present complainant submit that the said Harvester machine was delivered on 30.10.2021 and it has not properly functioned and suffered the defects of some parts within 15 days from the date of purchase, then after the complainant contact with the OP and said everything but no responsed, after a few days on 19.2.2022 this OP came to the complainant house without any intimation and changed some part of the said machine and further convinced this complainant that the machine is perfectly alright. After that the defect had happened again and again for this the complainant realized that the repeated defect, developed in the said harvester established that the harvester manufactured by OPs company is suffering from in harvest manufacturing defect and that due to repeated heavy repair to the said machine as such reason this present complainant incurred monitory loss. The complainant submitted that inspite of several phone calls requested individual and collective charts with the other people of company, the problem of the said harvestis was not solved by the OPs and as such on 5.9.22 the present complainant issued the notice to the OPs to settle his grievance by refunding the cost of the said harvester or provide new one said harvester with same features, after that the Op getting reply over telephonic communication that the warranty does not cover damage caused to the product due to lock at proper maintenance, misuse etc. for arbitration and denied any defect or any malfunction of the said Harvester. The present complainant submitted the crawler and assembly transmission suffer inherent defect and supplying of inherently defective harvester and failing to refund the said amount or provide the new one said harvester with same factors and as such this OPs itself proof to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to provide new one said harvest machine or to pay a sum of Rs. 1000000/- with 12 % interest and to pay a sum of Rs.150000/- with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.250000/- for mental harassment and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- for litigation cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Is there any cause of action for filing this case by the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant are to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the agent of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by parties.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
As all the point s of considerations adopted in this case are interlinked and / or inter-connected with one another and as the questions involved in the above noted points of considerations are related with each other, all these points of considerations are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly. For the purpose of arriving just and proper decision in respect of the above noted points of considerations, there is urgently necessity of making scrutiny of the evidence on record and materials available in this case record. This District Commission after going through the evidence on record finds that the complainant has failed to prove in his evidence that he purchased the said harvesting machine for earning his livelihood. At the same time the complainant has failed to establish that he has not purchased the said machine for commercial purpose. These two aspects are clearly reflecting that this case is not maintainable in its present form, fact and in the eye of law. Moreso, the basic case of the complainant is that the OPs supplied the harvesting machine with manufacturing defect. But fact remains that the complainant inspite of adopting the above noted plea of manufacturing defect of the said machine, has neither prayed before this District Commission for appointment of mechanical Engineer for inspection of the said machine and for submitting expert opinion. This matter is clearly reflecting that the complainant has failed to establish the fact that the harvesting machine which is supplied by the OPs has manufacturing defect from the beginning. Thus it is crystal clear that the complainant has failed to establish the basic need of this case. Moreso, in this case the complainant has claimed damages and compensation in alternative way but fact remains that awarding compensation in the case of damage is not coming under the purview of the jurisdiction of this District Commission. As per section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code only jurisdiction lies before the Ld. Civil Court.
A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that this case is not maintainable in its present form, fact and in the eye of law and the complainant has failed to establish his case in respect of all the points of considerations adopted in this case. So this District Commission has no other alternative but to dismiss this case.
In the result it is accordingly,
ordered
that this complaint case being no. 67 of 2023 be and the same is dismissed ex parte.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied at free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement.
The Final Order will be available in the official website of this District Commission, Hooghly.
