Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Subhash Chandra, Presiding Member
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University – Complainant
versus
M/s. Elseetee Agro
Machines India Pvt. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.271 of 2012
Decided on 7.7.2023
For the Complainant:Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Shilp Vinod and Ms. Ritika Rao, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Commercial Activity - The provision of mechanized equipment to farmers for use on subsidy as per a Government scheme cannot be taken as a commercial activity.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Supply to Government – If can be termed as a Commercial Activity - On facts, the procurement was done for a commercial purpose cannot be accepted as it was done as per a Government initiative and was with the objective of introducing mechanization of agriculture among farmers and not for a commercial purpose. The provision of mechanized equipment to farmers for use on subsidy as per a Government scheme cannot be taken as a commercial activity - Admittedly, the Cane Harvesters failed to clear the mandated field trials as per the terms & conditions of the purchase order placed on the opposite party. Opposite party has admitted to this although it has advanced reasons which, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs above, cannot be considered valid – On facts, Complaint is allowed. [Paras 5 to 15].
Result: Complaint disposed off.
ORDER
This consumer complaint has been filed under Section 21(a)(i) & 2(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, ‘the Act’) against opposite party who is sole distributor of Sugarcane Harvesters manufactured by M/s Guangxi Yunma Hansheng Machinery Manufacture Co. Ltd. (in short, ‘M/s Hansheng’) alleging that the harvesters supplied by the opposite party against a tender failed to perform after field trials as per specifications and as per the standard of performance assured by the opposite party. Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is alleged by the complainant through this complaint.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant had implemented a scheme of agricultural mechanization as per Government Order of Government of Tamil Nadu dated 03.03.2008 under which purchase of Sugar Harvesters to introduce such machines on farmers lands was proposed. In response to the tender advertisement dated 06.01.2010, the Purchase Committee of the complainant awarded the tender to the opposite party for a Whole Sugarcane Harvester model LCT-HSZ-2600 with cane box including taxes, inland transportation, insurance and incidental costs for Rs.141 lakhs. The opposite party provided a Performance Guarantee dated 22.03.2010 and an amount of Rs.70.5 lakhs (50% of the cost) was paid as first instalment on 03.05.2010 followed by Rs.56.4 lakhs (40%) towards the next installment. The opposite party supplied a harvester on 13.08.2010. Field trials were conducted between 14.08.2010 to 19.08.2010 based on which the complainant suggested change of cutting blades and to suitably modify the crop divider to a lower level. These modifications were done and the machine was again subjected to trials on 05.09.2010. During this demonstration, defects in the hydraulic system in the front and rear, electrical system, cabin indicators, heating of hydraulic pumps, top blower guide, oil leaks in gear box and other places etc. were noticed and reported to the opposite party on 06.09.2010. On 13.09.2010, opposite party assured that the defects would be rectified. However, this was not done despite 11 reminders. On 12.04.2011 opposite party agreed to replace the harvester with a new improved version for which the complainant conveyed approval subject to the condition that the specifications of the replacement harvester be at par or above that of the original harvester. The upgraded harvester was received on 24.06.2011.
3. In the meanwhile, the complainant approved the purchase of four more Whole Cane Harvesters at a cost of Rs.600 lakhs. The consent of the opposite party to supply the additional harvesters at the same price and on the same terms & conditions including the condition of a Bank Guarantee was obtained on 29.09.2010. An advance of Rs.282 lakhs was paid on 06.10.2020 followed by Rs.225 lakhs as second instalment on 04.11.2010. However, the opposite party failed to supply the harvesters within the stipulated 120 days and, therefore, a notice was issued on 04.02.2011 in response to which vague reasons for the delay were provided in reply dated 10.02.2011. One harvester was delivered on 23.05.2011 and the balance three on 04.06.2011. However, the harvesters failed to clear the field trial conducted on 01.08.2011 at Erankattore. Subsequent trials were held on 10.08.2011 and a team of technicians from the manufacturer undertook installation and adjustments between 23.08.2011 and 05.09.2011. Field trial on 24.08.2011 could not be undertaken due to wet soil conditions and subsequently the Sugarcane Mill was closed in September, 2011. The complainant sought the replacement of the harvesters vide letters dated 13.09.2011, 04.10.2011 and 28.10.2011. Resumption of field trials 23.11.2011 once again indicated unsatisfactory performance of the machines on 23.11.2011. The opposite party informed that technicians from China were expected by end of December, 2011 and since that did not happen, another notice dated 02.01.2012 was issued
