Dhananjay Jog
A few decades ago, Goa, like the rest of the country, was primarily an agricultural land. The traditional ‘rice-curry’ meal, accompanied by vegetables or fish, was made entirely from local produce. After meeting the needs of the local population, any surplus was sold to finance other necessities. Cash crops like cashews provided both nutritious nuts and the raw material for Goa’s ‘Feni’. Mangoes commanded good prices then, as they still do today. Sugarcane farmers supplied their produce to the government-run sugar factory.
However, this is no longer the case. While mining had existed earlier, it expanded significantly, and tourism has now become the primary industry. Hotels, bungalows, and commercial buildings replaced once-thriving fields. Today, cashew nuts are sourced from other states and sold to tourists as ‘locally grown’. The government sugar factory, after years of losses, is on the verge of shutting down.
Yet, all is not lost. Young Umesh Mhapsekar, who studied agricultural engineering, decided at the age of 28 to cultivate seasonal vegetables, fruits, and traditional rice on his family-owned land. With professional training in agriculture, he opted to invest in a Power Tiller Machine (PTM) for tilling, plowing, sowing, and crop production. After conducting research, he found that Kolhapur Engineers (all names and places changed) specialised in manufacturing and selling such machines. Accompanied by an experienced family friend, Mhapsekar visited the company. He was given a demonstration of the machine in a nearby field, which convinced him of its utility. Following this, he returned to Kolhapur Engineers and placed an order, transferring Rs. 1.2 lakh to the company’s bank account.
Around that time, the country went into a complete lockdown due to the COVID-19 outbreak, restricting the movement of people and goods. Once restrictions eased, the company dispatched the machine, which Mhapsekar received via a transport company. The Rs. 1.2 lakh he had paid included delivery charges. However, the transporter demanded an additional Rs. 4,500, which Mhapsekar had to pay. The transporter also handed him a tax invoice that listed the machine’s price as Rs. 35,000. By then, Mhapsekar had already received the correct invoice of Rs. 1.2 lakh by post. Suspicious of the discrepancy, he immediately contacted the company’s proprietor, who dismissed it as a clerical error, assuring him that it was nothing to worry about.
As Mhapsekar unpacked the machine from its large wooden crate, he immediately noticed that it was not new. The unit appeared old, with rusted parts and welded repairs on broken sections. Being an agricultural engineer and having recently witnessed a demonstration of a new model, he knew that such welding was not typical. Also, several screws, nuts, and bolts on the tires were missing. Most concerningly, the machine was completely non-functional—it couldn’t even move forward. Realising he had been deceived, Mhapsekar felt justified in his frustration.
When he contacted the proprietor, Devendra, the latter admitted that the wrong machine had been dispatched and assured him it would be replaced. However, this promise was repeated multiple times without any action. Eventually, Devendra stopped answering Mhapsekar’s calls. Left with no other option, Mhapsekar filed a complaint with the Consumer Commission.
Following standard procedure, the Commission issued a notice to Kolhapur Engineers. However, the notice was returned with the postal endorsement: “Intimated. Not claimed. Return to sender”. In legal terms, refusing to accept a Consumer Commission or court notice is considered an indication that the recipient does not wish to appear and contest the charges. As a result, the case proceeded ex parte (meaning it continued in the absence of the opposing party). Mhapsekar supported his complaint with an affidavit, written arguments, and oral testimony, managing the legal process himself without hiring a lawyer.
When an opponent does not contest a case, it simplifies the Commission’s decision-making, as there are no counterclaims or contradictory evidence. However, this does not mean the Commission blindly accepts the complainant’s allegations. Justice demands that every conclusion be based on solid reasoning and evidence.
In this case, Mhapsekar’s purchase of the PTM from Kolhapur Engineers was conclusively proven by his bank transaction records. The transport company’s delivery receipt confirmed that the machine had been delivered. Two invoices from Kolhapur Engineers were presented—one for Rs. 1.2 lakh and another for Rs.35,000, which had been handed over by the transporter. Mhapsekar also submitted WhatsApp conversations with the proprietor and photographs showing the machine’s condition.
These documents clearly established that Kolhapur Engineers had engaged in unfair trade practices by promising a new machine but delivering an old, defective unit. As a result, Mhapsekar suffered both direct financial loss (the money paid for the machine) and indirect losses due to his inability to cultivate crops. Also, he experienced mental distress and disappointment. Since Kolhapur Engineers did not appear to contest the case, the allegations stood unchallenged and were thus deemed proven.
The Commission ruled in Mhapsekar’s favour and issued a judgment ordering Kolhapur Engineers to replace the defective machine with a brand-new unit within 60 days. Should they fail to do so, the company was required to refund Rs. 1.2 lakh along with 7% annual interest from the date of payment. If repayment was delayed beyond 60 days, the interest rate would increase to 10% per month instead of the standard annual rate—an exemplary measure to deter fraudulent practices. Also, Mhapsekar was granted Rs. 25,000 as compensation, and the Rs. 4,500 paid to the transporter was to be reimbursed by Kolhapur Engineers.
(If you have any questions, comments, or if you are a consumer seeking assistance, please feel free to email me at danjog@yahoo.com)
