Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/12

Nachhattar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.S. Agricultural Industries Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Jaswinder Singh Dhillon

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

CC No. :                   12 of 2018

Date of Institution :    30.01.2018

Date of Decision :        2.01.2019

 

Nachahattar Singh aged about 65 years, s/o Dogar Singh r/o Dwareana Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot Mobile No.95010-39439.

   .....Complainant

Versus

K S Agricultural Industries Private Ltd, Raikot Road, Malerkotla, through its Proprietor/Partner/ Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

....Opposite Parties

                Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:       Sh J S Dhillon,  Ld Counsel for complainant,

 OPs Exparte.

 

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to Ops either to replace the  Paddy Straw Chopper or to refund the amount of Rs.2,40,000/-i.e cost of product and for further directing OP to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.22,000/-for litigation expenses.

2                                          Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant wanted to purchase a Paddy Straw Chopper and for this purpose on direction of OP, he moved an application before Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot and also deposited demand draft for Rs.5000/-. Permission to purchase the same was granted to complainant vide letter no.2434 dt 8.06.2017 issued by Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. On 29.06.2017, complainant deposited Rs.35,000/-with OP in cash and remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs after deducting Rs.5000/-on account of subsidy in the account of OP on 30.06.2017 and thus, total price of article were paid by complainant and in this way complainant purchased the said straw reaping chopper against proper invoice no.0125 dated 30.06.2017. But since the date of purchase, the said chopper did not work due to having some manufacturing defect in it. Complainant immediately reported the matter to OP as well as Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. OP assured to replace the same shortly, but did not make replacement. After that complainant made several requests to OP to either replace the said article or to refund the cost price of straw chopper, but they kept putting off the complainant on lame excuses. Complainant also wrote letter dt 15.01.2018 to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot regarding this act of OP, but all in vain and no action is still taken in this regard. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP. Complainant has prayed for seeking direction to OP to replace the article and to  pay Rs 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc and to pay Rs 22,000/-as cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 6.02.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                            Notice issued to OP through RC AD did not receive back undelivered. It was presumed that acknowledgement might have been lost in transit. After expiry of statutory period, when no body appeared on behalf of OP either in person or through counsel on date fixed, then after long waiting, OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.04.2018.                           

5                                                  Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-4 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                 As there is no rebuttal from OP side therefore, ld counsel for complainant advanced exparte arguments.            

7                                          The ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that for the purpose of purchasing a Paddy Straw Chopper, on direction of OP, complainant moved an application before Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot and also deposited demand draft for Rs.5000/-. Permission to purchase the same was granted and on 29.06.2017, complainant deposited Rs.35,000/-with OP in cash and remaining amount of Rs.2 lacs after deducting Rs.5000/-on account of subsidy in the account of OP on 30.06.2017 and thus, total price of article were paid by complainant and in this way complainant purchased the said straw chopper against proper invoice dated 30.06.2017. But since the date of purchase, the said chopper did not work due to some manufacturing defect in it. He reported the matter to OP as well as Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. OP assured to replace the same shortly, but did not do the needful and did not make any replacement. Thereafter, complainant made several requests to OP to either replace the said chopper or to refund the cost price of same, but OP did not do any needful and kept putting off the complainant on lame excuses. Complainant also wrote letter dt 15.01.2018 to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot regarding this act of OP, but all in vain and no action is still taken in this regard. All this caused harassment to complainant.

8                                  We have heard the arguments advanced by ld counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through the file and evidence led by the parties. It is clear from the bill dated 30.06.2017 that complainant purchased the above said paddy reaper from OP for Rs.2,35,000/-. Pleadings of the complainant are further proved with the help of document Ex C-3 which states that complainant intended to purchase a paddy straw chopper and for this purpose he wrote a letter to Chief Agriculture Officer, Faridkot. Through  his affidavit Ex C-1, he has reiterated his grievance against OP. It is the duty of OP to provide defect free paddy straw chopper to complainant. Had they provided any care to check the working condition of said chopper or extended any services to same up to the satisfaction of complainant, the condition would have been different. OP are liable for negligent and it is observed that there is a clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and hence, the present complaint is allowed against OP and Opposite Party is ordered to replace the defective Paddy Straw Chopper with new one and before handing over the same to complainant make sure that it is in working condition. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5000/-as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by complainant including litigation expenses. Complainant is directed to return the old Paddy Straw Chopper to OP at the time of receipt of new one. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 2.01.2019

Member                          President

                                                  (Parampal Kaur)                    (Ajit Aggarwal)