BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Monday, 14th March 2016
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 77/ 2015
V. Anil Kumar Reddy group represented by
1. V. Anil Kumar Reddy, S/o Rama Subba Reddy,
aged 38 years, Business and agriculture.
2. V. Rama Subba Reddy, S/o Narsimha Reddy,
aged about 63 years, Business and agriculture.
3. V. Vijaya Latha, D/o Rama Subba Reddy,
aged about 41 years, House wife, agriculture.
4. N. Muni Reddy, S/o Thimma Reddy,
aged about 65 years, agriculture.
5. N. Rama Subba Reddy, S/o Pedda Sanjeeva Reddy,
aged about 50 years, agriculture.
And above persons are represented by the convener V. Anil Kumar Reddy,
All are residing at Bodi Thippanapadu Villages,
Peddamudiam Mandal, YSR District. ….. Complainants.
Vs.
1. Prakash Agro Enterprises, Rep. by its
Proprietor Bhaskar Reddy, D.No. 11/749,
RTC Bus Stand, Mydukur Road, Proddatur – 516 361,
YSR District.
2. Sriram Enterprises, Authorised Dealer for
John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., D.No. 19-3-1K,
Renigunta Road, Tirupathi – 517 501, Chittoor District.
3. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by the Area Manager,
Plot No. 248, Srinivasa Nagar, Bank Colony,
Vijayawada – 520008, Krishna District.
4. John Deere India Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by the Managing Director,
India Marketing Head Office, Tower 15, Cyber City,
Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune – 411 013. …..Respondents.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 08-3-2016 in the presence of Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for complainant and Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for R1 and Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai, Advocate for R2 and Sri G. Guru Prasad, Advocate for R3 & R4 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the respondents / opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for not sending the accessories and causing of loss 1000 hours work to the complainant, to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- for mental agony undergone by the complainants, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for forcing the complainant to purchase implements, to pay Rs. 68,359/- lying to the credit of complainant as per invoice of sriram enterprises dt. 16-8-2013, to pay costs of Rs. 15,000/- and pass such other reliefs.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant has applied for package of machinery by seeing the advertisement issued by the Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the application is recommended by Mandal Agricultural Officer, Peddamudiam Mnadal, YSR District and sanctioned by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa under reference No. C3/218/2012, dt. 2-3-2013 and the cost of package is Rs. 13,66,359/- and Government granted 50% of subsidy for purchase of tractor with accessories viz., Ballast weight, canopy, canopy holder, wagon hitch and drawbar and agricultural implements. The complainant paid 50% of amount to R1 , who is authorized supplier of tractor under subsidy of Andhra Pradesh 50% of the amount is paid by the complainant by getting loan from Union Bank of India Proddatur.
3. The authorized dealer of John deer at Kadapa is Padma Auto dealer who gave quotation for purchase of tractor 5055E (55HP) 4 WD complainant paid Rs. 50,000/- on 4-7-2013 as advance to get tractor from the company. The dealer agreed to give cash discount of Rs. 60,000/- instead of Rs. 1,20,000/- as the tractor is purchased under subsidy and asked the complainant to take implements attached to the tractor and issued receipts. But the dealer ship of John deer was closed at Kadapa and he directed the complainant to pay advance amount to John Deere, Tirupati i.e. R2. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- as token advance to R2, tractor was delivered on 16-8-2013 to the complainant but without any accessories and without any sale invoice. The sale invoice was sent to R1 in the month of January but not to the complainant. The tractor was registered as AP 04 AS : 5514 on 29-01-2014 but the accessories which are to be sent along with tractor free of cost was not sent to the complainants and discount was also not paid. The credit bill given by R2 shows an amount of Rs. 68,359/- is in their account. The complainant sent email to Indian Sales Manager, John Deer i.e. R4 on 6-8-2013 with regard to discount amount. R2 got vehicle registered temporarily for Rs. 600/- and sent Rs. 17,000/- to the complainant though the complainant paid Rs. 2,400/- in excess for getting vehicle temporarily registered. Invoice was also not sent immediately. Since, accessories were not sent along with the tractor the tractor was kept ideal and complainant had suffered loss of 400 hours per year and the complainant also lost 1000 hours of work for nearly two years and accessories and implements. The warranty of tractor is two years and it expires on 15-8-2015, but the complainant has not used the tractor till two years. The warranty period was extended for four years on the request of the complainant. The complainant approached R1 for non supply of accessories and R1 gave his own implements i.e. one disc plough which costs about Rs. 30,000/- and asked the complainant to use them till the complainant get accessories in January 2014. But R1 took away his implements in the absence of complainants. Thus the complainants suffered a loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- for not using the tractor for 1000 hours and they had to pay Rs. 4,98,564/- to the Union Bank of India, though the tractor was not utilized and suffered mental agony to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-and the complainants forced to take all implements, thereby caused the loss of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. Hence, the complaint for the above releifs.
4. Respondents 1 to 4 filed separate counters they denied the allegations regarding deficiency of service on their part and non supply of accessories and implements as pleaded by the complainants and sustaining loss by them and their liability to pay amounts as claimed by the complainants and called upon them to prove all of them.
5. Respondent No. 1 further contended that the group of Anil Kumar Reddy was sanctioned package for machinery with 50% subsidy and accordingly this respondent received Rs. 6,83,160/- on 19-7-2013 by way of D.D. bearing No. 145450 from the complainants towards half of the amount including service tax, service expenses, transport expenses, group training expenses etc., and delivered the tractor to the complainants on 16-8-2013 but he is not aware about the discounts offered by R2 to the complainants. On 2-12-2013 this respondent has supplied all machinery to the complainants under proper acknowledgement to their satisfaction and counter signed by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Peddamudium Mandal and a letter issued to this respondent stating that there is no complaint from the 1st complainant, who had taken tractor package from the agriculture department. The complainants approached R4 at Kadapa and also dealer at Tirupati at his own risk. As per orders of the Government through its officials this respondent has provided implements to the complainants group to their satisfaction and there is no deficiency of service on its part. The other allegations are not correct and they are imaginary. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. Respondent No. 2, contended that out of Rs. 20,000/- paid by the complainant No. 1, Rs. 3,000/- was incurred towards temporary registration and PDI charges and the balance amount of Rs. 17,000/- was given to the customer by way of cheque No. 72842, dt. 16-8-2013 under his acknowledgement. Hence, the question of refund of Rs. 2,400/- does not arise. The tractor in question was delivered on 16-8-2013 with all standard accessories as per rules of manufactures of John deer company. The accessories mentioned in the proceedings by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa dt. 2-3-2013 as per quotation have to be obtained from R1 only. The amount was correctly paid by them and no excess of Rs. 68,359/-. There is no commitment to deliver the Agriculture accessories along with tractor and no deficiency of service on their part. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as it’s devoid of merits.
7. Respondents 3 & 4 filed counter contending the liability of manufacturer arises only when the tractor sustained any deficiency in manufacturing at the time of delivery to make good loss suffered by the complainants. Since, there is no allegations of manufacturing defect the respondents 3 & 4 are unnecessarily impleaded and no deficiency of service on their part. The warranty extension cannot be done as per the warranty and the same was clearly communicated to the complainants at the time of delivery and regarding implements and accessories the respondents have no consent. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents / opposite parties as pleaded by the complainants?
- Whether the complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed against the respondents / opposite parties as prayed?
- To what relief?
9. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of complainants Exs. A1 to A15 documents are marked and on behalf of the respondents / opposite parties Exs. B1 to B6 documents are marked.
10. Heard both sides and considered written arguments filed by the complainants and respondents and carefully perused by the documentary evidence placed on record.
11. Point Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended by the complainants that the accessories were not supplied along with the tractor and also not delivered implements in time along with the tractor. Therefore, 1000 hours are lost thereby sustained loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- and they also underwent mental agony and they are entitled for compensation and balance of Rs. 2,400/- and Rs. 68,359/- lying in their credit from the respondents. Therefore, the complaint may be allowed against the respondents.
12. Per contra it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the tractor was supplied to the complainants under package of machinery as recommended by the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Peddamudiam and sanctioned by Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa for an amount of Rs. 13,66,359/- with 50% subsidy with accessories as notified and no discounts are offered by the respondents no amount of Rs. 68,359/- is due to complainants and also Rs. 2,400/- payable by the respondents and complainants failed to prove the allegations regarding deficiency of service and imaginary articles said to have been promised by them. Therefore, the complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
13. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents to hold that the complaint is vague one and no merit to direct the respondents to pay the amounts as sought for by the complainants.
14. The complainants group of farmers applied for machinery by seeing the advertisement issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Mandal Agriculture Officer, Peddamudiam recommended the same and sanctioned by Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa on 2-3-2013 for purchase of tractor with accessories as notified at the cost of package of Rs. 13,66,359/-. The above said fact is admitted by both parties. Accordingly, the complainants paid Rs. 6,83,160/- on 19-7-2013 to R1 by way of demand draft bearing No. 45450 towards half of the cost of the machinery. The remaining 50% i.e. 6,83,160/- is to be given subsidy by the Government. After demand draft was encashed a temporary registration was done on 16-8-2013 and tractor was delivered to the complainants by R1. This is proved by the documents filed both complainants and respondents.
15. According to complainants the respondents promised to give cash discount of Rs. 60,000/-. But the respondents denied the said offer. So the burden is on the complainants to prove that any of the respondents offered to give discount of Rs. 60,000/- to the tractor purchased by them under Government package machinery scheme. None of the documents filed by the complainants shows that any kind of cash discount of Rs. 60,000/- was offered by any of the respondents to the complainants. Therefore, the said claim of complaint is not proved and they are not entitled for the said claim.
16. Another contention of the complainants is that the respondents failed to supply accessories viz., Ballast weight, canopy, canopy holder, wagon hitch and drawbar. According to respondents the accessories cannot be given free of cost and they are not included in the package sanctioned by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa under package of machinery scheme and what all sanctioned to the complainants group under the said package were supplied including implements. Though the complainants relied on Ex. A11 technical specifications for the above claim, but accessories are not part and parcel of the tractor supplied to them under the package of machinery scheme sanctioned by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa. Therefore, they cannot claim the above accessories from the respondents on free of cost and the same cannot be said deficiency of services.
17 The another contention of the complainants is that non supply of implements to them along with tractor by R1 so they sustained loss of 1000 hours and thereby sustained monitory loss of Rs. 3,00,000/- apart from mental agony of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Therefore, they are entitled for the said amount from the respondents. The above contention also does not hold water. As seen from Ex. B1 utilization certificate dt. 2-12-2013, the machinery details are 1) John Deere 55 HP4WD Tractor, 2) Shaktiman 36 blade rotavator, 3) Multicrop Planter, 4) Tractor mounted sprayer and 5) Taiwan Sprayers. All these implements are supplied to the complainants along with the tractor. Further perusal of the above documents the complainants acknowledged the above implements were supplied them along with the tractor and machinery is working fine and they are fully conversant with the working of the machinery. Therefore, the question that the respondents not supplied the implements along with the tractor does not arise and it is only invented for the purpose of this complaint.
18. So far as refund of Rs. 2,400/- by R2 i.e. also is not a correct claim by the complainants. As seen from Ex. B5 filed by R2 the 1st complainant V. Anil Kumar Reddy admitted that out of Rs. 20,000/- paid by him, Rs. 3,000/- was towards temporary registration and the balance is Rs. 17,000/- and he received the same. If such is the case R2 is not liable to refund Rs. 2,400/- as claimed by the complainants.
19. Further claim of Rs. 68,359/- said to be lying in the credit of complainant as per invoice dt. 16-8-2013 are entitled for the same from the respondents also cannot be upheld as the aid amount does not belongs to them. The complainants failed to explain how they are entitled for the above amount of Rs. 68,359/- from R2. Therefore, we hold that the complainants are not entitled for the above claim.
20. The machinery was supplied to the complainants under Government package of machinery scheme as recommended by Mandal Agriculture Officer, Peddamudiam and sanctioned by the Joint Director of Agriculture, Kadapa. The total cost of package of tractor is Rs. 13,66,359/- out of it the complainants group got subsidy of 50%. The remaining 50% was paid and got delivered the tractor with implements as per notification on 16-8-2013 and utilized the same. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service or manufacturing defect of the vehicle on the part of the respondents. The complaint is vague one and does not stand for judicial scrutiny, to grant reliefs claimed by the complainants and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainant.
21. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 14th March 2016
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 Application form (for package of machinery) with recommendation
by Mandal Agricultural officer.
Ex: A2 Proceedings of Joint Director, Kadapa with regard to subsidy Roc
No.C3/218/2012, Dt.2.3.2013.
Ex: A3 Receipt issued by Prakash Agro Enterprises for Rs.6,83,160/-
dated.19-7-2013.
Ex: A4 Quotation issued by Prakash Agro enterprises dated.25-2-2013.
Ex: A5 Receipt issued by Padma Automobiles for Rs.40,000/- and for
Rs.10,000/- with Endorsement dated.4.7.2013.
Ex: A6 E Mail sent by complainant with regard to enhancement of discount
Dated.06-08-2013.
Ex: A7 Invoice issued by Sriram enterprises showing credit of Rs.68,359/-
to the credit of complainant, dated 16-8-2013.
Ex: A8 Temporary registration certificate dated 16-8-2013.
Ex: A9 Sale certificate form no.21 issued by Sriram enterprises, dt 16-8-13.
Ex: A10 Delivery Challan , dated 16-8-2013.
Ex: A11 Technical specification of tractor showing accessories.
Ex: A12 Advertisement of John deer showing that dozer will be given free of
cost Dt. 25-12-2013.
Ex: A13 Advertisement of Sri Raghavendra Motors showing warranty for 4
years, dated 14-1-2014.
Ex: A14 Advertisement of John deer showing that they would supply tanker
along with tractor free of cost.
Ex: A15 Permanent Registration No.AP04 AS 5514 (RC) of tractor
dated 29-1-14.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents: -
Ex:B1 Original copies of utilization certificate-custom hiring centre for cotton crop 2012-2013 under RKVY scheme submitted to C & DA acknowledged by the complainants and counter signed by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Peddamudiyam, Kadapa District along with a photograph and cash/credit bill dt.30-11-2013.
Ex:B2 Photostat copy of temporary certificate of registration.
Ex:B3 Original Letter dt 28-12-2015 issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Peddmudiam, Kadapa District.
Ex:B4 Photostat copy of FIR No.92/2015 of Peddamudiyam
P/.S., Kadapa District.
Ex:B5 Letter Dt. 16-8-2013 to the opposite party from V. Anilkumar Reddy regarding Payment of Rs.3,000/- T.R. and PDI charge and receiving Rs.17,000/- by way of cheque.
Ex:B6 Copy of Manufacturer’s Warranty (duly attested).
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- Sri A. Rajasekhar, Advocate for complainant
- Sri G. Trivikram Singh, Advocate for R1.
- Sri G. Ramaiah Pillai, Advocate for R2.
- Sri G. Guru Prasad, Advocate for R3 & R4.
B.V.P
