This complaint u/s 35 of C.P. Act., 2019 was initially filed against O.P., The Proprietor, Osaka International INC, Plot No.- 15, Q1 Block, Opp. Park Hospital, Sec.- 49, South City- II, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001, India who contested the case by filing Written Version.

The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-

The complainant told in his plaint that he is a cultivator and by seeing an advertisement of OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine he contacted with the O.P. and after getting assurance regarding after sales service of the said machine from them, the complainant decided to purchase one OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine vied Model No.- OS-4LBZ-120 from the O.P. and on the basis of the quotation  price (Quotation No.- 2020-OS-8062, Dated 27-01-2020) of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only, the complainant purchased the said OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine from the O.P. The total quotation amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only was paid to the O.P. by the complainant through RTGS.

The complainant argued in his plaint that being a cultivator he purchased the said machine for the purpose of cultivation for self-employment and his livelihood purpose but after paying the full amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only to the O.P. they intentionally or carelessly delivered the said machine after a long laps of time i.e. on 30-05-2020 and due to this delay in delivery the complainant failed to get the benefit of the said machine in the 1^st cultivation season for which he faced a financial loss.

The complainant also argued in his plaint that several times he contacted the O.P. for seeking technical support/ help but did not get any result and after that the complainant managed a self operator from Uttar Pradesh to operate the machine but it was not working properly and the entire matter was informed to the O.P. by the complainant but no initiative had been taken by the O.P.. The complainant also told in his plaint that after purchasing the said machine he came to know that the O.P. sold the same model of OSAKA Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine to others in very low rate.

The complainant also argued in his plaint that several times he contacted with the O.P. but no initiative was taken by the O.P. and getting no result from the O.P.’s end on 26-06-2021 the complainant sent written complain to the O.P. but again the O.P. did not reply on it and on 01-07-2021 the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P. which was received by the O.P. on 08-07-2021 but again did not get any reply from the O.P. Finally, finding no other alternatives the complainant filed the complaint petition/ case on 12-11-2021

The complainant therefore prays

1. To give direction to the O.P. for proper servicing of the OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine at Jalpaiguri or refund total purchased amount of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only with up- to- date interest or replace with the new same model of OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine.
2. To give direction to the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs) only to the complainant as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
3. To give direction to the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs) only to the complainant for suffering from loss, harassment and mental agony for non working of OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine.
4. To give direction to the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousands) only towards costs of litigation.
5.  Any other relief, the Hon’ble Commission further pleased to award.

List of documents filed by the complainant-

1. Annexure A - Photocopy of quotation.
2. Annexure B - Photocopy of Bank Statement.
3. Annexure C - Photocopy of WhatsApp messages.
4. Annexure D - Photocopy of Written Complainant.
5. Annexure E - Photocopy of Lawyer’s Notice.             

The O.P., The Proprietor, Osaka International INC, Plot No.- 15, Q1 Block, Opp. Park Hospital, Sec.- 49, South City- II, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001, India, contested the case and as per his Written Version (W.V.) the case is as follows

 The O.P. submitted in his W.V. that the allegations made in the complaint was fabricated, concocted, imaginary and baseless and calculations in the complaint made by the complainant was imaginary and his claims were untenable in the eyes of law and liable to be dismissed in limine.

The O.P. argued in his W.V. that the quotation of the OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester (Half Feed) Machine vied Model No.- OS-4LBZ-120 was made by them vied Ref. No.- 2020-OS-8062 on and accordingly the complainant paid an advance of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only which was acknowledged by the O.P. on 27-01-2020 and the complainant made the full payment of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only through four separate RTGS in four different dates i.e., (i) Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only on 03-02-2020, (ii) Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only on 03-03-2020, (iii) Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand) only on 11/03/2020 and (iv) Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only on 21-03-2020.    

 The O.P. also argued in his W.V. that after receiving the full and final payment they took necessary steps to deliver the said machine to the complainant but unfortunately, after receiving the last payment on 21/03/2020 (Sunday) from the complainant, the Govt. of India (through the Prime Minister) declared Janata Curfew followed by a nation-wide executive lockdown for an identified period to halt and reverse the increasing curb the Novel Corona virus (Covid-19). Moreover, the Haryana State Govt. (the principal business place of the O.P. situated at Gurgaon) had imposed State Lockdown for prevention of further spread of Covid-19 by prohibiting the inter- state movements of goods. The O.P. also added in his W.V. that as a result of this Lockdown the delivery of products and travelling of engineers and office staffs of the O.P. were disrupted but despite of all hardships and medical emergencies, the O.P. managed to deliver the said machine to the complainant on 30-05-2020.

O.P. also told in his W.V. that due to Lockdown restrictions the O.P. failed to send its engineer right after delivery of the said machine but on 21/07/2020, the O.P. sent a trained engineer but during his visit, the engineer came to know that due to unnecessary hurry, the complainant was tried to operate the said machine with the help of some local unskilled operator/ mechanic and as a result the cutting blade of the said machine was broken and hence, the liability of the O.P. did not arise. In his W.V. the O.P. also argued that there are multiple models and designs of the said machine and different models have different price and in this regard the O.P. denied the price discrimination issue raised by the complainant in his plaint. 

The document filed by the O.P. is as follows -

1) Photocopy of Engineer’s Report.

Points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
4. Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for?

All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.

Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments advanced by both parties in full length.

                It is very much clear from the evidence that the complainant is a cultivator and by seeing an advertisement of OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine he contacted with the O.P. and after getting assurance on the after sales service of the said machine from them, the complainant decided to purchase one OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine vied Model No.- OS-4LBZ-120 from the O.P. and on the basis of the quotation  price (Quotation No.- 2020-OS-8062, Dated 27-01-2020) of Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only, the complainant purchased the said OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine from the O.P. for his own purpose. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case.

The complainant had filed this case within the limitation period and thus this case is very much maintainable under the C.P. Act 2019.

It is also very much clear from the evidence that the complainant several times informed the O.P. regarding the said OSAKA Mini Combine Harvester Half Feed Machine and the O.P. also agreed that the said machine was not functioning properly. Thus, this Commission has no doubt that this machine is not in a working position.

Now, the question arises that whether there is a deficiency in service by the O.P. or not. In this point, this Commission on its order dated- 23/02/2023 (Order No.- 24) directed the O.P. to produce terms and conditions papers relating to the sale of the machine and O.P. also directed to produce Engineer’s Report duly mentioning the qualification and other details of the said Engineer and gave chances to the O.P. to produce such documents. But the O.P. neglected to produce these documents before the Commission and this Commission has not hesitated to hold that there is an absence of terms and conditions related papers. Without terms and conditions or agreement paper O.P has no defense. The O.P. filed a photocopy of engineer’s report but that said report written in a plain paper and without any proper seal and even they did not mention the qualification and other details of the said engineer. Hence, this document can not be rely at all. The O.P. was also not communicated this report to the complainant. Moreover, this Commission had given an opportunity to the O.P. to file the engineer’s report mentioning the qualification and other details in a proper way in its Order No.- 24, dated- 23/02/2023 but the O.P. failed to do so. Without these two vital documents the O.P. cannot avoid its liability.

Considering all we are of the view that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the op.

                Hence it is   

ORDERED

                That the Consumer Case No. 41/21 be and same is allowed in contest against the O.P., Osaka International INC, Plot No.- 15, Q1 Block, Opp. Park Hospital, Sec.- 49, South City- II, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122001, India and the O.P. is directed to repair the said machine within 60 days from the date of this order failing which the O.P. is liable to pay Rs. 12,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs) only along with a simple interest at the rate 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this case i.e. from 12/11/2021. In that case, the O.P. has a liberty to get back the old said machine from the Complainant at his own cost.   

The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000 /- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000 /- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for litigation cost.

                Let a copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance .