IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
Dated this the 29th Day of July 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.146/2021
Bindhu : Complainant
W/o C.Prakash
Prasannalayam,Vallikkunnam Muri
Vallikkunnam P.O,Alappuzha District.
[By Adv.K.Vijayan]
V/s
Harikumar : Opposite party
Managing Director
Powertek Enterprises
Opposite Civil Station
Pallimukku, Pathanapuram.
FINAL ORDER
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President
This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is the proprietor of SPC Tiles and Bricks company. She has authorized a loan from the Women Industrial Unit and started the above Women Industry. The complainant enquired about the institution which would supply the machinery and thereupon she came to know the opposite party Power Tech Enterprises Company at Pathanapuram. The Executive of the opposite party immediately approached the complainant and visited the place where the complainant intended to set up the unit and also stated the details about the machinery and expenses for installing the same. The opposite party made the complainant to given undertaking and caused to believe and created trust. Later the complainant and her associates visited the opposite party company and obtained information from the company expert and also came to an understanding. On 05.09.2019 opposite party given a Performa invoice to the complainant and on the basis of the recommendation and report of the opposite party company the complainant decided to purchase ten types of machineries. The complainant who is not able to understand the meaning of technical terms in English believed the representation of the opposite party and put her signature on several papers as directed by the opposite party. On 14.07.2020 the executive of the opposite party company and labours together brought certain machineries to the institution of the complainant and unloaded the same. The complainant was of the view that one 7.5 HP 500Kg. Capacity Pan Mixer without Hydraulic Hooper was available among the machinery supplied. The remaining machineries were supplied on 23.10.2020. The complainant decided to check all the machineries but the opposite party postponed the checking of the same on another day and returned. In the mean while the opposite party obtained all the bill amount from the complainant. The complainant decided to inaugurate his industrial unit on 14.01.2021 and that fact was intimated to the opposite party well in advance. She has also decided to conduct a trial run of the machinery supplied to the opposite party. During the trial run it was understood that the machinery brought by the opposite party to the industrial unit of the complainant was colour mixing machinery which was not suitable for the proposed industrial unit of the complainant. The men deputed by the opposite party has not installed the machine but dumped the same at the industrial unit. They left the industrial unit of the complainant after intimating that within 2 days problem will be solved and another trial run will be conducted. As the complainant was a new comer to the industry she was not having any technical knowledge nor even able to understand what invoice is. But the opposite party was of the view that the complainant can be cheated easily as she is not aware of any technical terms and the nature of the machineries. Therefore they have obtained signature on several papers so as to counter any dispute if made by the complainant. But the complainant was not aware of this fact. The complainant came to know that the opposite party has cheated the complainant without supplying the actual machinery and received Rs.1,25,000/- from the complainant. Though the complainant contacted the opposite party they denied the liability. Hence the complainant caused to send a lawyer notice for which the opposite party sent a reply raising false and untenable contentions. The opposite party has stated in the reply notice about the machinery which was not ordered by the complainant. The complainant prays to pass orders directing the opposite party to supply 7.5 HP 500Kg. Capacity Pan Mixer without Hydraulic Hooper after adjusting the price given to the machinery ordered or in the alternative return Rs.1,25,000/- to the complainant. According to the complainant she has sustained much mental agony apart from financial loss and therefore she is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant further prays to direct the opposite party to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Though notice was served on the opposite party he remained exparty. Hence opposite party was set exparty. Complainant filed proof affidavit by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.P1 to P5 documents. Ext. P1 is the Performa invoice indicating that the complainant on 05.01.2019 has ordered 6 types of machineries worth Rs.4,72,430/- including GST. Ext.P2 is the offer letter. Ext.P3 is lawyer notice caused to sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.P4 is the Postal receipt evidencing the sending of lawyer notice to the opposite party. Ext.P5 is the reply notice issued by the opposite party in response to the lawyer notice sent by the complainant. The unchallenged averments in the affidavit coupled with Ext.P1 to P5 documents would establish the case of the complainant.
In the result complaint stands allowed directing the opposite party to replace the 7.5 HP 500Kg. Capacity Pan Mixer without Hydraulic Hooper machine with a proper machinery ordered by the complainant or in the alternative return Rs.1,25,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of purchase.
The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental agony and financial loss sustained due to deficiency in service committed by the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as costs of the proceedings.
Opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order by filing EP.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 29th day of July 2022.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext P1: True copy of proforma invoice dated 05.09.2019.
Ext P2: Copy of offer letter dated 14.07.2020.
Ext.P3: Copy of lawyer notice dated 24.03.2021.
Ext.P4: Postal receipt
Ext.P5: Copy of Reply notice.
E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-
S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-
Stanly Harold:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior Superintendent
