Heading1 Heading2 Complaint Case No. CC/17/109 1. Satpal Village Jamal Distt Sirsa Sirsa Haryana ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. M/s Kissan Agro Begu Road Sirsa Sirsa Haryana ............Opp.Party(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Roshan Lal Ahuja PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat MEMBER HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee MEMBER For the Complainant: Anil Beniwal, Advocate For the Opp. Party: Ravinder Monga, Advocate Dated : 02 Jan 2018 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA. Consumer Complaint no. 109 of 2017 Date of Institution : 18.05.2017 Date of Decision : 2.1.2018 Satpal Dudi son of Shri Bahadar, resident of village Jamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa. ??Complainant. Versus. 1. M/s Kissan Agro, Manufacturer & traders of all types of Agriculture Implements, situated at Kalyan Nagar, Begu Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa. 2. Vishavkarma Engineering Works (Manufacturer of brand Punni) Bhuna Road Tohana (Fatehabad) 125120. ...?Opposite parties. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT. SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER. Present: Sh. A.K. Beniwal, Advocate for complainant. Sh. Rishab Goyal, Advocate for opposite party no.1. Sh. Rattan Gill, Advocate for opposite party no.2. ORDER In brief, the case of the complainant is that complainant is an agriculturist and owns agricultural land at village Jamal, District Sirsa. The complainant in order to increase his crop production, wanted to purchase one Rotavator. The complainant purchased Rotavator size 8? without side disc make Vishavkarma engineering works against an amount of Rs.86,000/- from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.12 dated 22.4.2016 with guarantee/ warranty of one year. It is further averred that complainant purchased the ratavator knowing all its benefits as mentioned in the complaint. It is further averred that the ratchets and the ball bearings of the rotavator has become flat/ out of order and due to this deficiency the complainant is unable to get the benefits and due to said defect in the rotavator the complainant is also under much financial loss. As and when complainant came to know about this defect in the rotavator, he approached the op about the defect in the rotavator upon which the op no.1 checked the said rotavator through his mechanic and disclosed the complainant that upon the repairing an amount of Rs.20,000/- would be incurred. The complainant asked the opno.1 that the said rotavator is in warranty period but op did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and flatly put off the matter. That due to act and conduct and unfair trade practice on the part of ops, the complainant has suffered harassment and as well as financial loss. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the ops on 18.4.2017 but to no effect. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to refund the amount of Rs.86,000/- alongwith upto date interest and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expenses. 2. On notice, opposite parties appeared. Op no.1 filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that contents of complaint regarding purchasing of Rotavator on 22.4.2016 duly manufactured by Vishwakarma Engineering Works, Tohana from the answering op is admitted and rest of the contents are wrong and incorrect, hence denied. The invoice No.12 dated 22.4.2016 is very much clear about the certain terms and conditions which was duly accepted and signed by the complainant. From the perusal of the terms and conditions accepted by the complainant it is clearly mentioned that there is warranty of six months for the Rotavator subject to three mandatory services from the workshop. But the complainant failed to approach to the answering op to comply with the terms and conditions printed on the invoice No.12 dated 22.4.2016. The complainant has also failed to maintain the Rotavator and handled with negligence. The answering op in a bonafide way given the reply of the legal notice on 28.5.2017 wherein the technical reason, examples and further offer of settling the matter was explained. The thing is to observe positively that despite the negligence of complainant, the answering op is still offering to settle the matter in presence of respectable persons of the society. The complainant failed to accept the bonafide and genuine request of the complainant. Even repeatedly the answering op wrote another letter dated 5.8.2017 for offering the matter to be resolved in presence of respectable persons of the society. In fact the issue raised by the complainant is a technical one which needs detail elaboration, evidence, expert opinion etc. which could only be decided by the competent jurisdiction i.e. Civil Court. With these averments, dismissal of complaint has been prayed for. 3. Opposite party no.2 filed separately reply raising certain preliminary objections. The op no.2 also resisted the complaint on similar lines as that of op no.1. 4. The complainant produced his affidavit as Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh Mechanic as Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Leelu Ram as Ex.CW3/A, affidavit of Jaipal as Ex.CW4/A and copies of documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C5. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of op no.1 as Ex.RW1/A, affidavit of op no.2 as Ex.RW2/A and copies of documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R5. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully. 6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant purchased the rotavator from the opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.86,000/- on 22.4.2016 as is evident from copy of bill Ex.C1. The said rotavator is manufactured by opposite party no.2. Though the complainant has claimed the warranty of the rotavator in question for a period of one year but the ops have stated the warranty of the same for a period of six months. As per ops they are ready to settle the matter with the complainant amicably. From the copy of the letter dated 8.5.2017 Ex.R3, it is evident that there is some defect in the gear box of the rotavator in question and learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated at bar that they will remove the defect in the gearbox of the rotavator in question without any costs to the complainant. 7. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repairs and in the gear box of the rotavator in question of the complainant and to make it defect free without any cost within a period of one month from the date of its production by the complainant. If the mechanic of the ops is of the opinion that the gearbox is not repairable, gearbox of the rotavator in question may be replaced with the new one without any costs to the complainant. The complainant is also directed to produce the rotavator at the workshop of op no.1 within 15 days from the date of this order. We also direct both the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. Announced in open Forum. Member President, Dated: 2.1.2018. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sirsa. [HON'BLE MR. Roshan Lal Ahuja] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MRS. Rajni Goyat] MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. Mohinder Paul Rathee] MEMBER