Back
PUNJAB, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH.
Gurdev Singh, President, Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member, & Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
NUA Seed Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized signatories (i) Manpreet Singh (ii) Gagandeep Kaur —Appellant
versus
Gurjit Singh & Anr. —Respondents
First Appeal No.588 of 2012
Decided on 2.9.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sh. A.P.S. Shergill, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1:Sh. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate
For the Respondent No.2: None.
IMPORTANT POINT
Manufacturing defect must be proved by report of committee of experts.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Complaint—Limitation—Loss incurred due to failure of Paddy Transplanter Machine—Machine was purchased by complainant on 10.6.2009 but cause of action accrued to him when machine was used in fields and same was found to be defective—This fact was confirmed from report of Committee of Experts appointed by opposite party No.2, which submitted its report on 19.6.2009—Complaint filed by complainant on 10.6.2011 was within period of limitation of two years. (Para 10)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 and 17—Machinery—Agricultural equipment—Paddy Transplanter Machine—Loss incurred due to failure of machine—Complaint allowed by District Forum with compensation and cost of Rs.25,000/-—There is no documentary evidence on record to show that machine purchased by him was not upto specifications—Report of committee of experts has not been proved on record—Apart from self serving oral evidence of complainant himself by way of affidavit, no independent report is placed on record indicating that machine was not as per specifications or there was any manufacturing defect in it—Impugned order set aside and complaint dismissed. (Paras 12 and 13)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member—This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ opposite party No.1 against the order dated 13.10.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short “District Forum”), vide which the complaint of the respondent/complainant was allowed against appellant/opposite party No.1 with Rs.25.000/- as costs and compensation and dismissed qua opposite party No.2. The complainant was directed to return the Paddy Transplanter machine to opposite party No.1 within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and opposite party No.1 was directed to refund Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- to Department of Agriculture, from which it was received as subsidy, within 30 days from the date of receipt of Paddy Transplanter from the complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant was a farmer and used to cultivate his land with mechanised implements.
2. It was pleaded that opposite party No.2 recommended Paddy Transplanter machine, Model 22T8238 costing Rs. 2,50,000/-, which was to be sold by opposite party No.1 and offered subsidy of Rs.1,00,000/- on it. Opposite party No.1 made tall claims regarding its functioning and helping the farmers in paddy transplantation without the help of labour. On the allurement of the opposite parties, the complainant purchased one such machine from opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-, against bill/ invoice dated 10.6.2009 and paid Rs.1,50,000/- vide receipt No. 1303 and 1207 and the remaining amount of Rs. 1.0 lac was paid by opposite party No. 2 as subsidy. It was averred that the said Paddy Transplanter machine proved to be a failure in the fields due to which he and other farmers, who purchased the machines, were put to an irreparable loss. So, they resorted to staging ‘dharnas’ against day-light looting of agriculturists by opposite party No.1. News items were also published in various newspapers. Opposite party No.2 also visited the fields of the complainant and other farmers and prepared exhaustive report dated 20.6.2009 abut the failure of the machine and adoption of unfair trade practice by opposite party No.1, which was submitted to the Government. Even a criminal case was lodged against it with the police. It was further pleaded that the complainant was to sow paddy in 30 acres and got prepared the paddy nursery plants in two acres. But same was transplanted only in 5 acres with the help of the said machine. However, the plants vanished within two days. Opposite party No.2 also visited the spot and found that Paddy Transplanter was not going deep enough, so, the plants withered away. In the process, complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 7,50,000/- detailed as under:-
Loss of paddy crop in 30 acres : Rs.3,50,000/-
Loss of plants of paddy : Rs.50,000/-
Labour and oil consumption : Rs.1,00,000/-
Cost of machinery : Rs.2,50,000/-
He approached the opposite party No.1 to pay the said amount but it refused to do so. Therefore, he filed complaint before the District Forum for issuing directions to it to pay him Rs.7,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum alongwith Rs.12,500/- as costs of complaint.
3. Upon notice, opposite party No.1, in its written reply, pleaded that the complaint was filed before the District Forum after more than two years of purchase of the said machine and hence, the same was not maintainable being time barred. It was further pleaded that the complainant had not explained as to what was the problem in the performance of the machine except that it proved to be a failure which was patently a false allegation because the machine, in question, was allowed to be sold in the market by the State Government after thorough examination and after its practical usage conducted by technical experts. On examination by experts, the machine was found to be quite effective and its performance was found to be “good”. It also invited farmers to see the demonstrations o
