Orissa

Jajapur

CC/11/2021

L.Himadri Rao. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Priti Enterprises. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :  JAJPUR.

 

      1.    Present::-       1.   Mrs. Susmita Mishra,                President,

2.  Sri Bibekananda Das,                        I/c Member.

            Dated the 30^th day of September 2022.

C.C. Case No. 11 / 2021.

L. Himadri Rao,

C/o:- Rabi Sankar Rao,

Vill:- Sankachila, P.S:- Jajpur Road,

  Dist:- Jajpur.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                .  .  .  .  Complainant.

                        Versus.

 

1. Preeti Enterprises,

Plot No:- 407, GGP,

Rasulgarh, Palasuni, Kenal Road,  Bhubaneswar-751025.

2. Branch Manager,

State Bank of India, Jajpur Road,

At/Po:- Jajpur Road, Dist:- Jajpur.

. ...Opp. Parties.

                       Counsels appeared for the parties.                         

For the Complainant: -        Herself,

For the O.P. No.-1    :-          Mr. Kulamani Nayak & Mr. Surendra Ku. Biswal, Advocates.

For the O.P. No-2     :-          Mr. Pranab Kumar Das Pattnayak, Advocate.

 

Date of filing                                       :-        27.01.2021

Date of Hearing                    :-                      26.08.2022

Date of Oder                         :-                      30.09.2022.

MRS. SUSMITA  MISHRA,  PRESIDENT :-

            This C.C. Case No. 11 of 2021 is taken up today for order.  The present case is filed on dt.27.01.2021.  Complainant Mrs. L. Himadri Rao has filed this consumer complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking the following reliefs.

            “ Direct the O.P. No.1 to pay all the  balance dues payable amount of Rs.35,000/- towards the Double Die Paper Plate manufacturing machinery with Rs.60,000/- for late fee  and direct to the O.P. No.2 to sanction the Complainant’s loan A/c EMI &  Interest accrued thereon, for the last nine months, which was stopped forever with a miserable condition, from SBI, Jajpur Road Branch, Jajpur “.

Brief facts of the case :-

1.           The facts of the complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is applied for P.M.E.G.P. Loan for purpose of a Double Die Paper Plate manufacturing machinery before the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Jajpur Road Branch, District Jajpur for purpose of earning her livelihood, by means of self-employment and to maintain her family.  The complainant produced the quotation of the O.P. No.1 Preeti Enterprises for purpose of Double Die Paper Plate Machine on dt.23.03.2020.  Accordingly, the O.P. No.2 Bank sanctioned the loan amount of Rs.3,03,300/- and prepared the Demand Draft of Rs.3,03,300/- in the name of O.P. No.1 to purchase the Machine & other parts by the complainant.  After that, the complainant visited to the O.P. No.1 Company to see and purchase the Machine in Bhubaneswar, but during that time, there is no machine at all.  O.P. No.1 assured her to give the Double Die Paper Plate Machine which functioning capacity is only single phase electricity.  The complainant approached to the O.P. No.1 to give the machine in several times in personal visit and by over phone, but the O.P. No.1 Company avoided every time due to different   pleas like Covid-19 situation etc.  Complainant stating in the petition that some Jena Babu, a staff of O.P. No.1 told her, the machines are manufactured in their workshop in Bhubaneswar and proprietor of the Preeti Enterprises, Manufacturing Company namely Sri Trilochana Sahoo told her that such machines will be brought from Gujurat.  In the mean time, five months are left due to severe negligence of service from the side of O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2-Bank also demanded to pay the E.M.I. & told her “ You are bound to pay the E.M.I. of P.M.E.G.P. Loan from the date of sanction of the loan”.  The complainant also paid some E.M.I. in that situation which is caused to mental agony and harassment by the O.P. No.1 & 2.
2.          On 01.07.2020, the complainant had finally received the Double Die Paper Plate Machine and other parts with receipts from the O.P. No.1.  But the machine could not working properly.  Immediately, the complainant informed to Sahoo Sir about it through his Mechanical Engineer.  He replied that is the problem of Low Voltage for which with much pressure several equipments are bought by the complainant for smooth functioning of the machine.  But after that the machine are not worked properly. 
3.           On 30.10.2020, the Double Die Paper Plate machine had returned by the complainant’s husband to the O.P. No.1.  Thereafter, the complainant requested to return the new machine to the O.P. No.1, but all are in vain, no action taken by the O.P. No.1 for a moment.  Simultaneously, the O.P. No.2 Bank also demanding the payment of E.M.I. dues from the innocent complainant.
4.           Finally, on 08.01.2021, the O.P. No.1 resend a single Die Paper Plate Machine to the complainant.  But, unfortunately, till now, no Mechanical Engineer was sent to installed the machine.
5.           After a long gap to get the machine, the complainant became a defaulter due to non-payment of EMI to the O.P. No.2-Bank in Covid-19.  Hence, the complainant has sustained a huge loss for her self-employment and to maintain her family members because on the unethical trade practice adopted by the O.Ps vis-à-vis their acute deficiency in service.

Thus, the complainant filed the consumer case before this Commission alleging that unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service of the O.P. No.1 & 2.

6.          The O.P. No.1 & 2 after appearance in the case filed their written version through their authorized Representatives/Advocates.  The contesting O.Ps challenged the complaint on Maintainability and case is barred by law of limitation.  Further replies of the O.Ps is that not maintainable on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of this Commission and no deficiency in their service respectively.
7.           The contesting O.Ps further replied that total value of single Die Machine is Rs.1,36,226/- out from total Bill value of Rs.3,03,300/- O.P. No.1 returned the amount through cash & online transaction as the total amount returned is Rs.1,57,700/- with receipts and the balance dues payable amount of Rs.9,374/- & O.P. No.2 stating that in his written version is that the complainant’s in her complaint petition has not sought for any claim or compensation as against this O.P. No.2- Bank, for  this reason  the name of the O.P.-Bank be struck off for the cause title of the complaint petition.

ISSUES :-

8.           On perusal of the complaint petition, written application on dt.26.08.2022 by the complainant, written version of the contesting O.Ps and documents filed by the complainant and O.P. No.1 which are available on the record, the following issues are framed :-

 

1. Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” under C.P. Act, 2019  ?
2. Whether the present Commission has territorial jurisdiction to decide the present case  ?
3. Whether the complaint petition has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation  ?
4. Whether the O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service  ?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief sought for  ?

Issue No. 1 :-

            It is clear that the complainant had bought the Double Die Paper Plate Machine for the purpose of protecting and securing her livelihood and to maintain her family by means of self-employment, thereby, the complainant will fall within the definition of “Consumer” under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

            On the other hand, that the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(42) of the C.P. Act, 2019, where the O.P. No.2 rendered services to the complainant relating to P.M.E.G.P. Loan through Banking System, whereas, O.P. No.1 comes under the purview of Sec.2(45) of C.P. Act, 2019.

            The issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No. 2 :-

            The complainant Smt. L. Himadri Rao filed a complaint petition on dt.27.01.2021 before this Commission.

            The contesting O.P. No.1 filed his show cause objection on dt.25.02.2021.  The O.P. No.1 agitated in Para-16, that the petitioner should have filed the complaint at Bhubaneswar within the District of Khurda jurisdiction on the basis of mere printing as “All disputes arise subject to Bhubaneswar jurisdiction only” mentioned in the quotation on dt.19.03.2020.

            Now the question of “Territorial jurisdiction” on the present Commission discussed.  We heard the complainant herself and Advocate on behalf of the O.P. No.1. It is also admitted by both the parties that the Double Die Machine sold and despatched by the O.P. No.1 from Bhubaneswar and received by the complainant at Jajpur Road, Jajpur on dt. 01.07.2020. This the starting point of cause of action at Bhubaneswar, whereas, the complainant has resides at Jajpur Road, Dist. Jajpur and purchased the machine through PMEGP Loan to maintain her family by means of self-employment.

[Ref. cases:- Babulal Sharma & Anr. Vrs. Subhash Kumar, 2022(3) CPR 168 (N.C.)]

            Accordingly, the right to sue arose at Jajpur & this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case under provision of New Consumer Protection, 2019.

            This issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No. 3 :-

            In the show cause written by the O.P. No.1 that after the loan sanctioned by the Bank-O.P. No.2 Bank, O.P. No.1 has despatched the Double Die machinery item vide Tax Bill No.138 on dt.01.07.2020 through vehicle No. OD-34-H-9966 with giving ‘No objection certificate’ vide Ref. No. PE/PT/791, dt.19.06.2020 in which the machine is working properly at the time of demonstration.

            It is admitted by both the parties that after non-working of the machine due to low voltage, such Double Die paper plate machine was returned to O.P. No.1 on dt.30.10.2020. The O.P. No.1 resend a single Die Machine to the complainant on dt.08.01.2021 vide Receipt No.405/dt.08.01.2021.

            As per the record, after received the single die paper plate machine instead of the Double Die Machine on 08.01.2021 by the complainant some balance dues amount of Rs.35,000/- had not paid by the O.P. No.1 for which the complainant filed the present .C.C. Case No.11/2021 before this Commission on dt.27.01.2021, is well within the prescribed period of limitation U/s 69 of the C.P. Act, 2019, and as such it is maintainable on question is “Limitation”.

Issue No. 4 :-

            The complainant was filed before this Commission, praying for re-opened the PMEGP Loan EMI for last 9 (nine) months and interest accrued thereon which was stopped for ever from the O.P. No.2 Bank and to return the balance amount (surplus money) of Rs.35,000/- with late fee amounting of Rs. 60,000/- from O.P. No.1.

            Before the District Commission, the O.P. No.1 & 2 contested with this case.  O.P. No.2 Bank did not adduce any evidence for their support.  As per the document submitted by the complainant shows that in the Tax Invoice (GSTIN-21GMNPS9639NIZZ)  of Priti Enterprises vide No. 138, dt.01.07.2020 of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.3,03,300/- and signed by the complainant Smt. L. Himadri Rao with her husband Rabi Sankar Rao as well as the O.P. No.1.  On 08.01.2021, the receipt of single Die Paper plate machine amounting of Rs.90,000/- vide Receipt No.405, dt.08.01.2021 from the O.P. No.1 Priti Enterprises was admitted by the complainant and O.P. No.1.

            On the other hand, O.P. No.1 the Manufacturer Company in the name and style of “(Priti Enterprises)” filed his show cause/written version on 25.02.2021 and annexed the 12 Nos. of documents therein.

            The extract of Para-13   of the written version of the O.P. No.1 is reproduced hereunder :-

            “13. That the sale details of the Double Die Machine is quotation given by petitioner on 19.03.2020 thereafter payment has been made by Bank on 31.03.2020 through Demand Draft.  Date of sale is 01.07.2020 of Rs. 3,03,300/- (Rate of double die is Rs.2,57,034/- + Rs.46,226/- as GST) received by the O.P. No.1 on 01.07.2020, thereafter, sold the machine on dt.01.07.2020, so the O.P. No.1 took 2 months and 1 day for demonstration and delivery of the said machine.  Thereafter, the machine returned to O.P. No.1 which value (Double Die) is Rs.2,57,067/- + Rs.46,226/- (G.S.T.) and machine rate of single Rs.90,000/- + GST Tax Rs.46,226/- = Total value of single Die Machine Rs.1,36,226/- out from total bill value of Rs.3,03,300/- O.P. No.1 returned the amount through cash and online transaction as the amount returned is of Rs.1,57,000/- and balance dies payable amount of Rs.9,374/-.”

            It is admitted by the complainant as well as O.P. No.2 Bank, on 07.01.2021, the complainant had filed an application to O.P. No.2 Bank regarding the malfunctioning of the machine which is given by the O.P. No.1 to complainant and the said machine was returned to O.P. No.1 on 30.10.2020.  The O.P. No.1 assured to the complainant for the supply of the new machine, but till 07.01.2021, the machine (new) was not supplied by the O.P. No.1.  As a result, the complainant’s loan A/c EMI & interest accrued thereon had stopped foe ever with a miserable condition and also faced mental agony & harassment. 

            Further it is admitted by the complainant and O.Ps in their written version that the complainant has availed the PMEGP loan amount of Rs.3,03,300/- for a manufacturing unit for the production of paper plate from this O.P. No.2-Bank.

            We have heard the complainant herself and the learned counsel for the O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 Bank and gone through the record.

            Perusal of records and documents reveals that the total amounts of Rs.4,90,951/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety thousand nine hundred fifty one) only had paid to the complainant for machinery with other equipments instead of Rs.4,65,951/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty five thousand nine hundred fifty one) only out of the credit amount of Rs. 4,75,200/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy five thousand two hundred) only in the name of O.P. No.1-“Priti Enterprises” given by the O.P. No.2-Bank as per the documents given by the O.P. No.1.  But O.P. No.1 stating in his written version/ show- cause, as the balance dues payable amount of Rs. 9,374/- (Rupees nine thousand three hundred seventy four)  to the complainant.

            In reply, the O.P. No.2-Bank stating in his written version (Para-10) that the O.P. No.1, the supplier is bound to return the surplus money/amount to this O.P. No.2-Bank with details specification of the new machine.

            Moreover, document given by on the Tax Invoice 9GSTIN-21GMNPS96939IZZ) of O.P. No.1, namely, “Priti Enterprises”, vide Invoice No.138/dt.01.07.2020, in place of receiver’s signature as mentioned and signed by the Rabi Sankar Rao, husband of L. Himadrai Rao is completely different on that portion of the document submitted by O.P. No.1 compared to complainant’s Invoice document before this Commission.  It is found that the above said documents given by the O.P. No.1 are not authentic and these are fabricated for which the O.P. No.1 has committed gross violation of laws.  The disputed amounts are forged and manufactured by the O.P. No.1.  Besides that, the two different persons signed in the said invoice, which creates reasonable doubt that how the invoice details are different from the complainant’s invoice on a particular date, where one signature had done by the complainant herself and another was done by her husband Rabi Sankar Rao. 

            We do not expect from O.P. No.1, one Certified Company bearing No. An “ISO 900: 2015 Certified Company” to act in such a manner involving himself with illegal and immoral activities for which adjudicating body must punish to debarred the certified company to involve himself and harass the innocent unemployed lady during her claim.  During that period the complainant also paid the same loan EMI in a miserable Covid-19 situation to the O.P. No.2-Bank, due to the illegal activities of O.P. No.1, which amounts not only deficiency in service but also an unfair trade practice towards the complainant as well as to the society.

Hence, the O.P. No.1 has not provided the proper service to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P. No.1.

[Ref. Case Law:- COTMAC PVT. LTD. Vrs.  Mohammad Muzaffar, Crown Engg. Works, RR District, A.P. 2013(1) CPR 15 (Mah)]

Issue No. 5:-

As the O.P. No.1 is deficient in his service to the complainant, hence, the complainant is entitled for relief.

Deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the O.P. No.1 is proved.  Accordingly, the complainant along with O.P. No.2 both are entitled for the relief claimed for.  It is ordered:

O R D E R.

                        In the above facts and circumstances, we find that the law on the point is conclusively in complainant’s favour and consequently, the complaint is allowed on contest.  Accordingly, the O.P. No.1 is directed to pay the late fee claim of the complainant amounting of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only to the complainant for deficiency in service; Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only towards mental agony and harassment only to the complainant and we further directed to return the differential amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only for the adjustment of the said loan EMI of rest 9 (nine) months to the O.P. No.2-Bank with interest accrued thereon from the date of sanctioning of loan amount for the complainant for the purpose of earning her livelihood by means of self-employment to maintain her family, to be paid within one month after received of this order, failing which the O.P. No.1 is liable to pay @ 12% interest per annum on the above assessed amount from filing of the present dispute till payment is made.

            The dispute is allowed against the O.P. No.1 and dismissed against the O.P. No.2 Bank.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30^th day of September 2022.