DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 27 OF 2015
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy - Member.
T. Geetanjali Rao, aged - 26 years
Proprietor, SRI RAM AGARBATI At: Hatapada,
Laxmi Market (Ram Mandir Road) PO/PS:Phulbani
Dist: Kandhamal. State: Odisha …………………………….. Complainant.
Versus .
M/S- H& D TECHNOCRATS ,
21 Dhaval Estate, Opp.Palm Hotel, Nr, Odhav Ring Road Circle,
Odhav, Ahmedabad, State- Gujrat . ……………………………..OPP. Party.
For the Complainant: Sri B.K. Pattanayak Advocate and his associates.
For the OPP. Party : Sri K.B. Satpathy Advocate and his associates
Date of Order: 29-08-2016
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in brief is that she is the Proprietor of SRI RAM AGARBATI which is financed by Allahabad Bank, Phulbani. She contacted the O.P for Agarbati machineries being attracted by Website advertisement and also as per advice of the financer on the basis of the quotation given by the O.P. The Bank has sanctioned the loan to purchase the machines from the O.P. The O.P had received an amount of Rs. 7, 82,697.00 from the Allahabad bank through two cheques and supplied the following machines to the Complainant on 09-05-2014
1.Bamboo Round Stick Machine Sat
2.Manual feeding Incense Making Machine High Speed
3.Auto feeder for Incense Making Machine
4.Mixer Machine
5.Vibrator Charna
-2-
The Complainant has paid Rs. 100,000/- towards transportation cost of the machines, but in the month of February 2015 production of the firm was completely stopped due to defect of the machinery .Accordingly the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Opposite party. So, on 22-02-2015 the expert of the O.P came to Phulbani and made some repair and the Complainant has deposited Rs.10,000/- towards to and fro charges of the mechanic along with Rs. 24,000/-for his service under compulsion as the same was beyond the condition . But the machine was again defective at the time of starting for which the Complainant communicated the O.P,but the O.P has not taken any steps for which the Firm is under lock since February 2015 and the Complainant is facing difficulties by paying the house rent , electricity charges and labour payment which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P .On 30-06-2015 the Complainant sent a notice to the O.P by registered post for replacement of the machine but the O.P sent a reply on 12-07-2015 with false plea and on 08-08-2015 one Damodar Sharma came and inspected the machines and admitted that the machines are defective and needs replacement . But the O.P failed to provide proper service as a result of which the stock materials amounting Rs. 1,50,000/- has been destroyed and the bank interest is increasing day by day. As the defect detected during the warranty period and the Complainant sustained financial loss due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service of the O.P , this complaint was filed by the Complainant for a direction to the O.P to replace the machines with compensation of Rs. 4, 50,000/- or to pay Rs. 12, 32,697/- in total.
The Case of the O.P as per his version is that the Complainant has purchased the above machines with all accessories as per the quotation of the O.P. The O.P has sent the engineer who properly repaired the said machine after receiving the complain from the Complainant .So, the averments made in the petition is total false and fabricated. The Complainant is not liable to get any compensation after lapse of the warranty period. The further case of the O.P is that the petition filed by the Complainant is not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction.
During course of hearing the Complainant has examined 3 witnesses including herself on the basis of affidavits filed by them. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the O.P .Exit-1 to Exit -17 were marked on behalf of the Complainant. No exhibits were marked on behalf of the O.P.
We have heard the learned counsels of both the parties. We have gone through the complaint petition, the affidavits filed by the Complainant and her witnesses, the version of the O.P and the documents filed by both parties in support of their case. We have also gone through the written argument filed by the Complainant through her Advocate.
The main point of consideration is that whether the O.P had committed any deficiency in service in his part and whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief as per her claim. It is pointed out by the Complainant that due to defect in the machinery the production of the firm was completely stopped since the month of February 2015 . As per the complaint the mechanic of
-3-
the O.P came and repaired the machine but the machines were still defective. It is seen from Exit -4 that the Complainant had deposited Rs. 10,000/- in the account of the mechanic Mr Panchal on 06-02-2015 and Rs.24.000/- in the account of the O.P on 12-03-2015. The said repair was done during the period of warranty as per the guarantee certificate dated 09-05-2014 vide Exit -5. Exit -6 is the letter given by the Complainant on 30-06-2015 to the O.P for replacement of the defective machines namely Bamboo Round Stick Machine Sat and Auto feeder for Incense Making Machine. Exit -7 is the reply of the O.P wherein it is mentioned that the problem is with the Complainant as she was not able to run the machine properly .In Para-3 of the said letter it is mentioned that one Mr. Vishal Panchal the technician of the O.P stayed 3 days at Phulbani and completed the installation of the machines as per the request of the Complainant. But the fact of above payment was not mentioned in the said letter. Admittedly the machines were supplied to the Complainant on 09-05-2014 and the payment of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to Mr Panchal towards his to and fro charges by the Complainant. So it cannot be believed that Mr Panchal came to Phulbani to install the machine after 9 months of the purchase. The statement given by the Complainant that Mr. Panchal came to repair the machine as per her request is more appreciated than the plea of the O.P. This is the duty and responsibility of the O.P to provide proper service to the Consumers who purchase the machines from him. The O.P has not filed any documents to prove his innocence. The O.P remained silent without taking any effective steps in spite of repeated complain and demand of the Complainant. Under Section 2(1) (g) of C.P Act it is defined to mean any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service . So, the O.P has indulged in unfair trade practice.
In the above circumstances in our view the O.P has committed deficiency in service as he failed to give proper service to the complainant as far as the machines supplied to her are concerned. Hence, the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed in part. The O.P is directed to replace the defective Bamboo Round stick Machine Sat and Auto feeder for Incense Making Machine by giving new machines to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order . The O.P is further directed to return back Rs.34,000/- to the Complainant which amount he had taken from the Complainant during the guarantee period and to pay Compensation of Rs. 20.000/- within the said period. In case of failure the Complainant is entitled to get Rs. 05,01,350/- towards the cost of the defective machines and Rs. 54,000/- as directed above from the O.P along with 10 % annum interest from the date of filing of the complaint it is 31-08-2015 till the date of payment .
The C. C is disposed of accordingly. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
