STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/1309/2017 AMAR SINGH PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE RAMPURA, TEHSIL HANSI AND DISTT. HISAR. ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus NEW VISHWAKARMA MECHANICAL WORKS PRESENT ADDRESS - NEAR PETROL PUMP, BARNALA BAJE KHANNA ROAD, TEHSIL SANGRUR, DISTT. BARNALA.,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NONE FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

NONE FOR RESPONDENT.

DATED: 10/10/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 02.11.2017 Date of final hearing: 10.10.2025 Date of order: 10.10.2025 First Appeal No.1309 of 2017 IN THE MATTER OF:-

Amar Singh S/o Mansa Ram now deceased through legal representatives namely 1.

Ravinder 2. Surender, both sons of Late Sh. Amar Singh, resident of village Rampura, Tehsil Hansi, District Hisar.

.....Appellant Versus New Vishwakarma Mechanical Works, through its Proprietors Tara Singh (Mauran Wale) & Inderjeet Singh son of Kuldeep Singh, Near Petrol Pump, Barnala, Baje Khanna Road, Tehsil Sangrur, District Barnala Pakho Kanchain (Punjab).

…..Respondent CORAM: Sh. S.P. Sood, Judicial Member.

Sh. S.C. Kaushik, Member Present:- None for the appellant.

None for respondent.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Delay of 48 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.

2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1309 of 2017 has been invited by legal representatives of the complainant to legality of order dated 15.06.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.376 of 2016, which was dismissed.

3. Factual matrix: Complainant purchased one Powerduster 48 inch value, double Elevator of PTO Shaft, 616 tyres, double filters Chassis 4X2 heavy material for the purpose of harvesting the thrashing of paddy, wheat, sarson and moong crops from OP vide invoice No. 189 dated 15.09.2016 amounting to Rs.1.00 lacs, which includes cost of Rs.95,000/- + other expenses of Rs.5000/- and OP agreed to deliver the same to him on 25.09.2016. As per plea; the powerduster sold to him by OP is not in accordance with specification mentioned in the retail invoice. The elevator is not 48 inch and it is of lower size, elevator is getting choked, it is also not having the frame of 4 x 2, paddy is not being cleaned and it also breaks the gains of paddy into pieces and it is not giving satisfactory performance to the complainant and the same is lying idle and the very purpose of purchasing the same had been defeated. As per plea; despite repeated telephonic calls, OP is also not listening to his calls and is not ready to replace the said powerduster. The harvesting and thrashing season was at its peak in this area and is just coming to an end within a few days. The powerduster in question is hardly cleaning and thrashing the paddy crop of 10 acres in a day, which is much below its recommended capacity by the OP. Complainant has been suffered huge financial loss of Rs.5,000/- or so per day due to above mentioned defective and substandard powerduster sold by the OP. Inter-alia on these pleas; complaint has been filed for issuance of directions to OP: to replace the defective powerduster free of cost and its own expense with a new one OR to refund the cost of same to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from 15.09.2016 till realization; to pay him Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and Rs.11,000/- towards litigation costs.

4. OP did not appear despite notice and was proceeded against ex-parte in the proceedings before learned District Consumer Commission vide order dated

20.01.2017.

5. Complainant led his respective evidence oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same; complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 15.06.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Hisar, thereby giving r