D.O.F:27/02/2019
D.O.O:29/04/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.43/2019
Dated this, the 29th day of April 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
1.P.N Sapna
W/O Rajesh Kumar.N
Sreenilayam,
Karadukka Post
Kasaragod – 671542 : Complainants
2. Rajesh Kumar N, aged 38 years,
S/o M. Kunhambu Nair
Sree Nilayam, Barkol, P.O. Karadka,
Kasaragod Taluk
(Adv: Shrikanta shetty.K) :
And
M/s. Al – Tech Kitchen Equipments
5/124A, Altech Kitchen Equipments : Opposite Party
Edathala, Aluva,Kerala - 683112
(Adv: Binu Mathew & K. Abdul Nasir)
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( as amended )
The facts of the case in brief is that the complainant No.1 ordered for the purchase of a 'Full automatic Chapathi machine with Atta kneeder from the Opposite Party upon assurance of performance of the machine and guaranteed final product of half cooked chapathi fit to be used in her business to serve in the market. The said chapathi machine was supplied by the Opposite Party No.1 on 03.06 2018 on payment of Rs.5,78,000/- at the work shop of complainant .The purchase of chapathi machine was under "Stand up lndia "self employment scheme and loan from Indian overseas Bank. Thereafter , the work of chapathi machine started on 19.10.2018 , but to the surprise with sadness it was found that the machine was not functioning effectively and the final product of the chapathi emerges without half cook and in proper shape. The complainant lost raw products, market sale due to the defect in the said machine. The complainant called the opposite party to cure the defects in the machine but opposite party didn’t care to comply with the repeated request. Finally the complainant demanded the replacement of the above machine with Semi automatic Chapathi machine but opposite party was not ready for that also.
The opposite party supplied a defective machine and there after didn't care to cure its defects nor to replace it and thereby committed service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered monetary Ioss and mental agony. Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the Rs.5,78,000/- the price amount paid for the machine aIong with Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation.
The opposite party entered appearance and filed written Version. As per the written version of the Opposite Party the allegations in the complaint are incorrect, false and therefore denied. It is submitted that the complainant has no locus standi to file the case. The complaint is not maintainable as the machine purchased was for commercial purpose in her "Rasayi Food Industry."
The machine supplied by the opposite party was in perfect working condition at the time of installation. Thereafter on 15.02.2019 when opposite party received complaint from Mr. Rajesh, the complainant's husband, service engineer of opposite party visited the site and on inspection it was found that entire paneI board of the machine was tampered with and kept removed /isolated from the machine. The Service Engineer therefore advised the complainant's husband that the tampered parts must be firstly be reinstalled and then the machine to be put in running condition to check to find out the problem. It was also advised that though the service was free during warranty period, he has to pay for the damaged gadgets, if any. The the complainant's husband Rajesh was not at all interested in carrying out service of the machine by the service engineer. The complainant's husband did not permit the service engineer to carry out the service but insisted to take back the machine and refund the price amount. It is now understood that such tampering of machine was done purposefully with ulterior motive of filing this false complaint. It is denied that the Full automatic Chapathi machine with Atta kneeder supplied by the opposite party is not property working.
There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party .There is no financial loss or mental agony due to acts or omissions of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complaint was originally filed by complainant No.1 and thereafter, her husband Mr. Rajesh is impleaded as complainant No.2 as per the order in IA No .206/2019.
An expert commission has been appointed to inspect the machine as per the order in the IA 62/2020, who filed his report after inspection with due notice to the parties.
The complainant No. 2 filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A1 to Ext. A2 and Ext. C1 are marked .The Ext - A1 is the invoice dated 03.06.2018 issued by the opposite party. Ext. A 2 is the Letter dated: 05 .08.2019 issued by the Indian Overseas Bank. Ext. C 1 is the Report of the expert commission. The opposite party did not adduce any oral evidence nor produced any documents
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following
issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, both these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is is that the Full automatic Chapathi machine with Atta kneeder supplied by the opposite party is not properly working and when the complainant called the opposite party to cure the defects in the machine , opposite party didn't care to comply with the repeated requests. The opposite party supplied a detective machine and there after didn't care to cure its defects nor to replace it and there by committed service deficiency, due to which the complainant suffered monetary Ioss and mental agony.
In order to prove the defects of the said machine, an expert commission was appointed as per the application of the complainant , who filed his report stating that the machine is defective.
The opposite party denied the allegation that the Full automatic Chapathi machine with Atta kneeder supplied by the opposite party is not properly working.
The opposite party states that the machine supplied by the opposite party was in perfect working condition at the time of installation. Thereafter on 15.02.2019, when opposite party received complaint from Mr. Rajesh, the complainant's husband,
service engineer of opposite party visited the site and on inspection it was found that entire paneI board of the machine was tampered with and kept removed /isolated from the machine. The Service Engineer therefore advised the complainant's husband that the tampered parts must be firstly be reinstalled and then the machine to be put in running condition to check to find out the problem. It was also advised that though the service was free during warrantee period, he has to pay for the damaged gadgets, if any. The complainant's husband Rajesh was not at all interested in carrying out service of the machine by the service engineer.
The opposite party has another contention that the complaint is not maintainable as the machine purchased was for commercial purpose in her "Rasayi Food Industry."
The Complainants argue that their "industry" is only for eking out their lively hood under self employment. The document Ext. A 2 the Letter dated: 05 .08.2019 issued by the Indian Overseas Bank. would show that a loan of Rs.20,00,000/- has been sanctioned to the complainants under ''stand up India" Scheme, which is the flagship programme of Govt.of India, in order to promote Self employment for SC/ST and women entrepreneurs. So the argument of "Commercial Purpose” would not stand.
As regards the working condition of the Machine supplied by the Opposite party there is Ext. C1 document, the report of the expert commissioner.
The relevant portion of Ext.C1 reads as follows:-
" 2. The Full automatic Half cooked Chapathi machine is not functioning as fully automatic Chapathi making machine during the process of Chapathi making ."
"Also for full automatic functioning, the timing and proper sequencing of various sensors, acquators, pneumatic cylinders, and accuracy and reliability of the sensors and acquators are very important. As it was not working in full automatic mode, these could not be ascertained .".
"As the machine was not working in fully automatic mode, closing and pressing of the plates were done manually. The chapathi produced during this process was inspected. The shape (of the chapathi) was almost circular, but with oval shape,
if the cut ball is falling in correct orientation in to the gap between the heater plates. Sometimes the cut balls falls rotated, in such cases, the produced chapathi is slightly oval in shape, with about 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm difference in diameters''.
So it is clear from the report is that the Machine is not functioning fully automatically as argued by the opposite party. The assurance of performance of the machine became unreal. It is important to note that final product of half cooked chapathi is not of proper shape as guaranteed.
The complainants wanted to produce chapathi not for her breakfast. They want to sell the same in market for competitive price and raise income, out of which they want to meet daily expenses and pay the loan instalments .
The shape (of the chapathi) was almost circular, but with oval shape, if the cut ball is falling in correct orientation in to the gap between the heater plates. Sometimes the cut balls falls rotated, in such cases, the produced chapathi is slightly oval in shape, with about 1.5 cm to 2.0 cm difference in diameters''. So it is obvious that such chappathi is not fit to be used in her business to sell in the market.
The opposite party could not disprove these aspects by adducing reliable evidence. The opposite party alleges that the complainant purposefully done tampering of machine with ulterior motive of filing this false complaint. It is really a very strange argument. It is unbelievable that an unemployed person would purposefully tamper her machine, bought out of bank loan and make it defective only to indulge in frivolous Iitigation.
It is eye opening to see that the complainant resorted to make and sell idlis , in small scale , for their Iively hood, as the chapathi production failed due to the defects in the machine, as the PW - 1 deposed during cross examination.
Therefore with the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the Full automatic Half cooked Chapathi machine supplied by the opposite party is defective one and the complainant suffered much hardships and loss out of it. The opposite party didn't care to provide after sale service nor cure the defects of the machine. Therefore there is service deficiency on the part of opposite party.
Here the complainants pray for the refund of the price amount paid along with a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-and costs.
This commission is of the view that the complainants are entitled to get the refund of Rs.5,78,000/- with interest. Regarding the compensation, there is no details of loss and Rs.10,00,000/- is a very huge amount to be allowed. This commission hold that Rs.1,00,000/- will be a reasonable amount of compensation.
ln the result , the complaint is allowed as above and the Opposite Party is directed to pay amount of Rs.5,78,000/- with 8% interest per annum from 27.02.2019, the date of complaint till payment, to the complainant .The Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards Compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards the costs. The complainants are directed to hand over the defective machine to the opposite party, at the event of payment of the amount ordered here in.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Tax invoice
A2- A letter Dt: 05/08/2019
C1- Commission Report
Witness Examined
Pw1- Rajeshkumar
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
