| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 336 of 6.9.2017 Decided on: 15.10.2020 Jasbir Singh son of Gurdev Singh, resident of Bollar Chowk, House No.24, Ward No.3, Sanour Tehsil and District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Mistri Sadhu Singh Krishi Udyog, Dabwali-Hanumangarh Road, Sanagaria-335063 (Rajasthan) through its Prop./Authorized Signatory. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY For the complainant: Sh.Paramvir Singh, Advocate For OP: Ex-parte. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Jasbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Sadhu Singh Mistri (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Briefly the case of the complainant is that the OP is dealing in the sale of agriculture implements under the name and style of Mistri Sadhu Singh Krishi Udyog Dabwali-Hanumangarh Road, Sangaria and has been displaying his agricultural implements at various fairs.
- It is averred that the complainant is an agriculturist and believing the quality of the OP’s agricultural implements, placed the order for the purpose of hydrolic harrow 18 wali type max (9X9),one set cultivator, beam model plate model and also one set Tavia hydrolic 18 Tawe complete set, one set cultivator 11 type beem model, one set 20 hydraulic disc harrow, 20 Disc, Top link system model(Yellow Colour) vide bills dated 10.5.2016, 11.5.2016 and 29.12.2016.
- It is further averred that at the time of placing the order on 30.4.2016, an amount of Rs.61000/- was paid in cash as token money and the OP company delivered the said agricultural implements to the complainant on 11.5.2016.At the time of giving the delivery of the same, Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash. The delivery of the said items was given to the complainant at Sanour Tehsil and District Patiala by the concerned authorized representative of the OP.
- It is further averred that after some days of the purchase of the above said implements, the Harrow started giving problem while cultivating. The said problem was brought to the notice of the OP who admitted the same and agreed to replace the said harrow with new model 10x10. While delivery of the said harrow an amount of Rs.22,500/- was paid in cash by the complainant as extra price of the same. However, the said harrow 10x10 was also creating problem while cultivating the land and this fact was also brought to the notice of the OP. At this the authorized representative of the company visited the site alongwith mechanic with the purpose to repair the said harrow on 15.4.2017 and 7.5.2017 but they failed to rectify the defect of the harrow and took the same with them with the purpose to repair the same which is still in the custody of the OP.
- It is averred that the said harrow and other agricultural implements are of sub standard nature and are not meeting requirement of ISO and are not giving good results, as a result of which three seasonal crops were damaged and the complainant suffered huge loss
- It is further averred that due to illegal acts of the OPs the complainant suffered huge monetary loss and he also suffered from mental agony, physical harassment. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the OP but the did not give any attention to the same. There is thus deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OP to refund whole amount of the implements i.e. Rs.1,12,500/- and also to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
- Notice of the complaint was duly given to the OP through registered post but it failed to come present to contest the case and was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
- In exparte evidence, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant alongwith documents Ex.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- To prove this case, the complainant tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and has deposed as per the averments made in the complaint alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3. He has specifically pleaded that at the time of placing the order on 30.4.2016, an amount of Rs.61000/- was paid in cash as token money and the OP company delivered the said agricultural implements to the complainant on 11.5.2016.At the time of giving the delivery of the same, Rs.50,000/- was paid in cash. After some days of the purchase of the implements, the Harrow started giving problem while cultivating. The said problem was brought to the notice of the OP. The OP agreed to replace the same. While delivery of the new harrow an amount of Rs.22,500/- was paid in cash by the complainant as extra price of the same. However, the said harrow was also creating problem while cultivating the land. This problem was also brought to the notice of the OP. The authorized representative of the company visited the site alongwith mechanic on 15.4.2017 and 7.5.2017 but they failed to rectify the defect . While cultivating the land with the harrow the rod of the harrow break down and as such the same did not fetch good result. The harrow and other agricultural implements are of sub standard nature and are not meeting requirement of ISO and are not giving good results, as a result of which three seasonal crops were damaged and the complainant suffered huge loss.The authorized representative of the OP for the purpose of rectifying the defect took the harrow with it and still the same in its possession. Legal notice was also got served upon the OP but to no effect.
- Notice was given to the OP but it failed to come present and was accordingly proceeded against exparte on 8.12.2017.
- Due to un-rebutted evidence on the file, it is clear that sub-standard implements were supplied by the OP to the complainant and he has suffered huge loss due to inferior quality implements supplied to him. As such the complaint stands allowed and the OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,12,500/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 6.9.2017 till realization. The OP is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/-as costs to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
ANNOUNCED DATED:15.10.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
