For the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Alak Kumar Adhikari

For the OP: Ld. Advocate Debiprasad Chowdhury

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

Order No.25

Date:22-04-2024

Both parties are present through their Ld. Advocates.

The case is fixed for argument. After hearing Argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder:-

The complainant case is that he purchased PREET 949 combined Harvester (Tracktype) machine from the OP-Dealer for Rs. 23,60,000/- (Twenty three lakh sixty thousand only) ­­under receipt dated-21.09.2020 financed by the Central Bank of India, Lodhasuli Branch, Jhargram with down payment of certain amount to the OP- Dealer.

After delivery of the machine the Complainant could not work on it and thereafter it stopped functioning and came to a halt without any use. The complainant has regularly paid considerable amount of EMI to the concerned financer. The matter was reported to the OP-Dealer several times who in turn reported to the OP-Manufacturing company for proper service and maintenance of the defective machine but of no effect.

The Complainant thereafter approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

OP-Dealer contested the case by filing a Written Version contending inter-alia  that after receipt of the complain of defective Machine the matter was duly intimated to the OP-Manufacturing Company for taking due care of the grievances of the complainant without undertaking any requisite services and maintenance on their own part. On the contrary OP-Manufacturing Company filed a Written Version to the effect that they have no liability in respect of the defective Machine supplied to the complainant, on the ground that no such Machine was supplied to the Complainant under the Dealership of OP which was not existing at the relevant point of time.

In support of the complaint case Affidavit-in-Chief of the Complainant has been filed and questionnaires thereto have been submitted by OP-Dealer and OP-Manufacturing Company followed by reply thereto by the Complainant.

-: Decision with reasons :-

Having regard to the fact of the case, contention, submission and document on both sides the Commission finds that the Harvester Machine in question is in fact lying in dead condition without any use for long time and no attempt or initiative was undertaken by neither Dealer nor the Manufacturing Company to make the machine fit in running condition, although     Rs. 26,000/- (Rupees Twenty six thousand only) was paid to OP- Manufacturing Company as service charges.

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has vigorously submitted before the Commission that both the Dealer and Manufacturing Company have committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by neglecting proper service and maintenance of the defective machine for which the Complainant is entitled to get adequate compensation.

Ld. Advocate for OP-Manufacturing company has submitted before the Commission that the Dealer was without any authority at the relevant time to enter into the transaction in question.  This contention is not tenable as the transaction was ratified by the OP-Manufacturing Company which is evident from the documents on record. In view of the existence of commercial relationship between the OP-Manufacturing Company and OP-Dealer authorization of Dealership is irrelevant in this case and both OP-Dealer and OP-Manufacturing Company are therefore jointly and severally liable for service and maintenance for the defective Machine in question. But the machine as it stands now is beyond service and repair. Neither the OP-Dealer nor the OP-Manufacturing Company shall avoid their product liability action as provided in chapter-vi of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 particularly within the warranty period.

Accordingly OP-Dealer and OP-Manufacturing Company has to compensate the Complainant jointly and severally by payment  of 50% of  Rs. 23,60,000/- (Rupees Twenty three lakh sixty thousand only) being the price value of the defective machine in case the overhauling of the defective Machine at the instance of OP-Company in collaboration with OP-Dealer fails. The concerned financer i.e. Central Bank of India, Lodhasuli Branch shall not proceed with the recovery process of outstanding amount till the completion of the above exercise as directed above.

Hence, it is ordered…

that the case is disposed of on contest by directing the OP-Manufacturing Company to undertake the overhauling of the Machine in question with the active co-operation of OP-Dealer within Two Months from this date in default OP-Dealer and OP-Company will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the Complainant  as directed above. Financer  Central Bank of India, Lodhasuli Branch will not proceed with the recovery process  till the above direction is complied with by the parties concerned within the stipulated period and on payment of the compensation amount as above OP-Dealer/OP-Company will take back the defective Machine at their own cost and expenses.

Both parties are supplied the copy of this order free of cost.