Yamunanagar: Mansa firm penalised for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices

Shiv Kumar Sharma

Yamunanagar, October 22

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Yamunanagar (DCDRC) has directed a Mansa district (Punjab)-based manufacturer of agriculture implements to pay Rs 2,73,000 to a resident of Yamunanagar district.The firm has been penalised for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

The said amount includes a refund of Rs 2,23,000 (paid by the complainant to the manufacturer (opponent) as cost of the agriculture implement) and a punitive damage of Rs 50,000.

After repeated complaints of defect, neither the opponent rectified the defect, nor replaced the same with a new one and nor refunded the cost of the defective ‘reaper’, a tractor pulled agricultural implement to harvest wheat and paddy crop.

The order was passed by the president of the DCDRC, Gulab Singh, members Sarvjeet Kaur and Jasvinder Singh on October 11.

“There is no ground to disbelieve the complainant. The version of the complainant is found plausible and it is concluded that the opponent delivered a defective reaper to the complainant, costing Rs 2,23,000. Neither the opponent rectified the defect, nor replaced the same with new one, nor refunded the cost. It is an act of sheer negligence, deficiency in service, unfair trade practices, causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss to the complainant,” reads the order of the DCDRC.

As per complaint of Karnail Singh of Jogiwara village of Yamunanagar district, the opponent is the manufacturer of agriculture implements.

He said he had purchased a reaper’ from the opponent to earn his livelihood in the course of self-employment for Rs 2,23,000 on March 29, 2023.

He alleged that at the time of the delivery of the reaper, the opponent did not depute any technician for the purpose of trial.

He added that on his many requests, the opponent sent four persons for trial on April 10, 2023.

He further alleged that they had tried to operate the reaper, but they were not successful and the employees of the opponent told him that it had manufacturing defect.

He said thereafter, he requested the opponent many times to replace the defective reaper with a new one, but the opponent did not do so.

DIRECTED TO REFUND MONEY

Company told to pay Rs 2,73,000 to a resident, including a refund of Rs 2,23,000 (paid by the complainant to the manufacturer as cost of the agriculture implement) and a punitive damage of Rs 50,000