AWADHRAM BIJOURA vs MANAGER, PRIYAL AGRO

THIS complainant/appellant filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, registered as Complaint Case No. 474/98 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short). The District Forum by order dated 9.12.1999 dismissed the complaint. The present appeal is directed against the said order.

UNDISPUTEDLY the complainant/appellant purchased a ''Ripper Machine'' from the respondent for a sum of Rs. 39,000/- on 26.11.1997. The complainant''s grievance was that the machine did not function properly and developed defect on 30.11.1997. Though the machine was repaired by the respondent, still it did not function properly, hence the complaint. The complaint was resisted by the respondent. According to the respondent the machine was of good quality and was functioning properly. It was averred that since the complainant/appellant did not maintain said machine properly it had started giving problems. However, the defects in the machine were duly attended to by the respondent on receiving complaints from the complainant. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

The District Forum held that it has not been specified by the appellant as to what was the exact defect in the machine. No expert opinion in this regard has been placed by the complainant on record. It was, therefore, held that the complainant/appellant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. It was further held that respondent has in fact proved that the machine was of good quality and did not suffer from any defect. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

AFTER hearing learned Counsel and perusal of the record, we find that the complainant has not specified as to what was the exact nature of problem or defect in the machine. Except the affidavit of the appellant, no material has been placed on record by the complainant/appellant in support of his complaint. The respondent has averred that the complaint in the machine was duly attended to by him. In this connection, reply to the notice given by the respondent to the appellant has also been placed on record, which supports the contentions as above of the respondent that the complaint was duly attended to by the respondent and that it had started functioning properly to the satisfaction of the complainant/appellant. Documents by other agriculturists have also been placed on record which show that the machine operated satisfactorily. It is clear that the complainant/appellant should have specified the defect in the machine and should have proved the grievance raised by him regarding the alleged defect in the machine. For that purpose he should have preferably placed on record the opinion of an expert. He had however, failed to discharge his burden and has not placed any material on record to substantiate the averments and the grievance raised by him in the complaint. As against this the respondent has placed documents on record which go to show that the complaint of the complainant was duly attended to and that other agriculturists were satisfied with the performance of the machine.

IN the aforesaid circumstances, the finding of the District Forum that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent appears to be justified. The said finding is affirmed. IN view of the above, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, the parties shall bear their own cost of this appeal, as incurred. Appeal dismissed.