CC.No.176 of 2008
BETWEEN:

M/s. Srivin Agro Industries,
Rep. by its Managing Partner Jaya Shree,
D.No.26-1-72,
Chakravarhty Nilayam,
Nagarampalem, Guntur. … Complainant

AND

Europack Machine (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
14, Bindal Industrial Estate,
Near Lalitha Rubber, Sakinaka, Mumbai.
Maharashtra State. … Opposite party

This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 30-04-09 in the presence of Sri K.S.Murthy, Advocate for complainant and the opposite party called absent and set exparty, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:

O R D E R
Per Sri T. ANJANEYULU, PRESIDENT:

This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant claiming for rectification of defect in the dye of 70 cavity, which was returned to the opposite party under the guise of repair or replacement with a new one and to pay production loss since 23-12-07 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/-, damages of Rs.50,000/-, incidental expenses of Rs.10,000/-, cost of litigation of Rs.5000/- etc. from the opposite party .

The brief facts of complaint are that the opposite party engaged in production and sale of products of Automatic Vacuum Machine, Chiller (T), Forming Dyes (T), Punching Dyes (T) and Hydraulic Cutting Press. The complainant had purchased the above products on raising invoice bearing No.018 dt.23-06-07 and paid entire sale consideration. The opposite party has guaranteed the quality of their products and believing the same, the complainant placed order for supply of the same. After purchase, complainant found that the Forming Dyes supplied by the opposite party were defective and it is requested to rectify the defects or to replace the same. The representative of opposite party Mr.Mahesh visited the complainant factory and taken the defective dye of 70 cavity with a promise to replace the same. But so far it has not been replaced nor rectified the defect despite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant suffered a lot and there was production loss as he failed to carry out operations. The complainant sent so many reminders and at last on 31-03-08 requested the opposite party to take action for replacement of 70 cavity dye. The opposite party kept silent and there was no response. The complainant sent legal notice on 05-05-08, which was received by the opposite party on 15-05-09 but they remained silent. The opposite party is negligent in carrying out the business from the beginning. On each occasion, complainant brought to the notice of opposite party about ineffective functioning of machine. The representatives of opposite party failed to turnout the defect of machine. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence, the complaint.


Notice of this complaint has been served on opposite party. In pursuance of said notice an authorized representative of opposite party appeared before the Forum on 18-11-08 and prayed time for filing version.

Thereafter no body turned up and no version was filed. At last the opposite party was set exparte. The complainant filed its chief affidavit apart from marking documents vide Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the tax invoice bearing No.018 dt.23-06-07 for supply of machinery described in a complaint at the cost of Rs.7,99,795/-. This invoice is raised in the name of complainant. On 16-10-07, the complainant informed the opposite party about nonfunctioning of Dye 70 cavity for faulty installation by a letter vide Ex.A2. There after reminders were also issued on 22-12-07 vide Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 dt.31-03-08. Ex.A5 is the legal notice dt.05-05-08 which has been acknowledged by the opposite party vide Ex.A6.


The chief affidavit of complainant along with documents on record do prove and establish the case of complainant. The opposite party did not take care or shown any interest in rectifying the machine Dye of 70 cavity and the same was retuned on 23-12-07. Neither the repairs were carried out to it nor replaced with a new one. It is but natural that it would cause production loss to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for replacement of Dye of 70 cavity machine from the opposite party apart from reasonable amount of damages either towards production loss, mental agony or pain and suffering, inconvenience of work, interest etc.

The complainant is also entitled for cost of litigation proportionately.


In the result, we allow this complaint in part in terms as indicated below:

1.The opposite party is hereby directed to replace with a new dye of 70 cavity machine in place of old machine immediately to the complainant and also pay Rs.10,000/- towards production loss and Rs.5000/- towards damages and mental agony.

2.We also direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.The aforesaid order shall be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amounts shall carry interest @ 9% p.a.