By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.The complaint in short is as follows:-

      The complaint is filed by Mr Usman@ Usman Koya Hassan, the power of attorney holder of Mr. Basheer K A.   The complainant was about to start a Chapatti making unit

as self-employment scheme. He happened to see the advertisement of the opposite party and   the complainant and power of Attorney holder approached the opposite party on 05/06/2017 and the opposite party showed   the working of the   proposed machine in his computer system and the complainant satisfied with the performance. The price  for the chapatti making machine was Rs. 1,95,000/-(Rupees One lakh and  ninety  five thousand only)  and the price for Atta  mixing machine was Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees Thirty-five thousand only). The complainant advanced Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-five thousand only) towards the cost on the same day.  The opposite party issued a receipt for the same and also a brochure was given to the complainant.  Thereafter the opposite party demanded Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards the advance and so on 14/06/2017, the power of Attorney holder as per the instruction of the complainant sent Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand)  through State bank of India Edakkara branch, Malappuram district as further advance to the opposite party. Thereafter on 20/6/2017 complainant along with one Usmankoya Hassan reached at opposite party establishment and paid Rs.1,55000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty five thousand)  as balance  and Rs. 7150/- (Rupees Seven thousand one hundred and fifty) as tax.  But the opposite party issued bill stating the price of the machine as Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and the  price of Atta mixing as Rs. 30,000/-(Rupees Thirty thousand only).  The total amount paid was Rs. 1,95,000/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only), but the opposite party wilfully hide the earlier payment of Rs. 75,000/-

(Rupees Seventy five thousand only).  The version of the opposite party for issuing the

bill was that if the correct bill is prepared huge tax will have to be paid by the complainant.  Thereafter both the machines brought to the chapatti making unit and tried to make chapatti but the chapatti machine was defective and not working and so the complainant informed the opposite party.  The technicians of the opposite party came to the unit and tried to work the machine but they could not work the machine, they said that machine could not be repaired.   Then the opposite party said that the machine will be replaced by a new one.  But the opposite party did not turn to replace the machine and so complainant approached opposite party demanding replacement of machine several times, but it was vein.  Complainant submits that the Atta mixing machine is working properly.  The complainant submits that while the opposite party showed the video of working of the machine there was automatic dough feeding and the waste of the Atta after cutting the chapatti will go to the Atta container in the machine automatically and on seeing the video, the complainant booked the chapatti making machine.  But in the supplied machine there was no provision which are shown in the video.   The allegation of the complainant that the supplied machine is a primitive second-hand model, abandoned one and some parts changed and seen painted so as to look a new one.  At the delivery time of machine it was covered by brown paper and plastic, so the complainant could not see the machine.  Thereafter the complainant caused to issue lawyer notice on  30/08/2017  demanding  the  opposite party to return

the cost of the machine and also compensation.  The complainant thereafter purchased another chapatti making machine and started to run the chapatti making unit. 

2.           The allegation of the complainant is that  the act of the opposite party amounts  unfair trade practice  and so there may  be direction to the opposite party to refund the  amount of Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only) along with 15%  interest and compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakh only). Complainant also prays for a cost of altogether Rs. 75,000/-(Rupees Seventy five thousand only).

3.          On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party but despite of receipt of notice not turned up.  Hence, he was set experte and an order was passed   by this Forum on 31/05/2018.  Thereafter the opposite party preferred appeal A 61/2019 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and it was allowed and remanded for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the Appellant/opposite party to file version and also to adduce evidence if any.  Thereafter the opposite party   entered appearance before this Commission and filed version on 04/03/2020. 

4.           The opposite party contented that the complaint is not maintainable and which is filed without bonafide and on experimental basis. The opposite party denied the entire averments and allegations contained in the complaint and there is lack of jurisdiction for the Commission.  The contention in the complaint that the complainant   residing at Edakkara in  Malappuram District  and  at present  residing at  Mysore  is  not

correct and there is no document to substantiate the same.  The opposite party situates at Bangalore.  The address shown by the complainant at the time of purchase and at the time of installing the machine the address of the complainant given as Basheer, K.R. Mill colony, Chamundi Temple, Near Mysore.  So the contention of the opposite party is that all the transaction between the complainant and opposite party took place at state of Karnataka. The complainant also has given address in the complaint which shows that he belongs to Calicut.   So, these facts shows that the issue between the parties are out of the jurisdiction of the Commission.

5.    The opposite party submits that; they are not aware of the contention that the power of attorney holder is aware of entire things but admit that the power of Attorney and the complainant conducting business as partnership.  The submission of the opposite party is that complainant wilfully hiding the business relationship between complainant and power of attorney.   The opposite party content that the averment in the complaint that they approached the opposite party on 5/6/2017 to start a chapatti making unit as part of self-employment with the description of single phase, belt system, machine  and the value  described as Rs.1,95,000/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only), mixing machine worth Rs. 35,000/-(Rupees Thirty five thousand only) advance paid Rs. 25,000/-(Rupees Twenty five thousand only) are in correct.  According to the opposite party the value for the machine received from the complainant was only Rs. 1,37,150/-  (Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand one hundred and fifty only) and for  that  bill  was  also  issued  by  opposite party.  The  opposite party  alleges  that  the

produced bill by the complainant related to another business transaction.  The opposite party denied that they have not received any amount from the complainant through bank transactions. The opposite party never instructed the power of attorney holder to send money through bank account.  The allegation that the opposite party issued bill for Rs. 1,37,150/-(Rupees One lakh thirty seven thousand one hundred and fifty only) to avoid the Tax is not correct.  The contention of the complainant that technicians of the opposite party came to the unit of the complainant and inspected the working of the machine, found it is defective and said that it cannot be rectified is not at all correct.   Actually the complainant and the workers of the complainant are totally ignorant  of working of the machine and so  the technicians came to the unit of the complainant  and demonstrated  to the complainant  about  working of the machine  and never told  that the machine will be  replaced.   The opposite party denied that  the complainant  approached  twice the opposite party, but no action was taken is not correct  but even on phone call the technician were deputed by the opposite party and demonstrated the working of the machine.  Thereafter never the complainant contacted or came to the opposite party.  The averment of the complainant that the opposite party showed video to the complainant, an old machine painted and also replacing certain parts supplied to complainant is totally incorrect.  The opposite party denied the technician said that machine is not working, machine cannot be rectified but the technician showed to the complainant how to work the machine.  The averment of the opposite party is that the complainant on seeing certain new machines wanted to replace the old machine and for

that he is prepared to pay the value of old machine.  The contention of the complainant that  the opposite party  offered three years warranty and also  offered service after sale  is not correct,  but it was  given only  one year  repairing  warranty.  The  opposite  party

while the complainant reported a complaint during the warranty period without any delay properly served the complainant. The opposite party is also denied that they issued an old model machine and there was unfair trade practice. The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to refund the value and interest thereon and the complaint deserve dismissal with cost of the opposite party.

6.        The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents.  The document on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A8. Ext. A1 is copy of Brochure of opposite party, Ext. A2 is visiting card of opposite party, Ext. A3 is copy of advance booking receipt dated 05/06/2017, Ext.A4 is a Pay-in-slip dated 14/06/2017, Ext. A5 is a Tax invoice dated 20/06/2017, Ext.A6 is Lawyer notice along with postal acknowledgement, Ext. A7 is a purchase bill dated 21/08/2017, Ext. A8 is a   Power of Attorney . Documents on the side opposite party marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is a letter from opposite party  to the CDRF, Malappuram dated 14/12/2020.  Ext. B2 series are photographs of disputed machineries. Commissioner’s report marked as Ext. C1.

7.        Heard both sides perused documents and affidavit and notes of arguments.  Following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether there is jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2.  Is there any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
3.   Reliefs and cost

8.  Point No.1

      The contention of opposite party is that the address given by the complainant belongs to the Mysore and the machineries also were installed at Mysore.  The averment in the complaint that, complainant is originally belongs to Calicut and he resided a certain period at Edakkara and for self-employment purpose, he has started an industrial unit at Mysore. So there is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averment of the complainant is that while watching the advertisement of the opposite party and booking the machine the complainant was residing at Edakkara, Nilambur, within the jurisdiction of the Commission. He has produced document to show that he transferred Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards the additional advance amount from Edakkara. Though the machineries were delivered and installed at Mysore, part of the transaction took place at Edakkara and which is within the jurisdiction of this Commission. Though the opposite party denied the transaction of Rs. 50,000/- from Edakkara , the document Ext. A4  establish that  an amount of Rs. 50,000/-  transferred to the account of the opposite party on 14/06/2017.   So, there is no veracity in the contention of the opposite party that he has not received or not advised the complainant to  transfer  money in to the  account of opposite party.    So, we  hold  that the contention of the complainant is correct and the Commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the first point is answered accordingly. 

9.   PointNo.2

         The grievance of the complainant is that  the opposite party  demonstrated  a video 

about his product in front of the complainant and supplied  a machinery   which is not  in accordance  with the demonstrated  machinery .  The opposite party denied the version regarding the demonstration of the machinery in front of the complaint.  The issue is not that whether it was demonstrated or not but whether it was defective and sufficient to meet the requirement of the complainant.  The complainant purchased the instruments to start an industry as part of self-employment.  The complainant   caused to issue an expert Commission to examine the products involved in the complainant which situated at Mysore.  The attempt of the complainant was to establish the machineries supplied to him was defective.  The expert commission prepared a report after inspection of the machineries in presence of both parties on 07/12/2020. The commissioner reported that he is convinced that the machine supplied by M/s GEEBEE Industrial products, Bangalore is not suitable for an industrial unit to produce Chapattis continuously.    The aim of the complainant was to install a chapatti unit as part of his livelihood.  The Commissioner reported that expected production number of chapattis per hour if unit works properly, it is possible to make less than 50 chapattis and approximate cost of unit according to make less than Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty thousand only).  So, it can be seen that the machineries installed at the request of complainant   is below standard and a low cost one.  There is a dispute regarding the cost of the machineries.  According to the complainant the total cost of machineries worth Rs. 1,95,000/-(Rupees One lakh ninety five thousand only). The opposite party do not admit the same.  The opposite party submit that the bill issued to the complainant is right one and the price shown in the bill is also correct.  It is also denied the allegation that considering taxation of the product lesser amount shown in the bill. But considering evidence there is no document to establish the claim of the complainant. The complainant admits that, the flour mixing machine is working.  But the chapatti making machine is defective.    The complainant issued lawyer notice to the opposite party   demanding refund of the price of chapatti making machine and also compensation.   But the opposite party did not turn to consider the demand of complainant. The complainant produced Ext. A7, a bill for chapatti making unit purchased subsequently. Hence Ext. A7 reveals the   real intention of the complainant to proceed with a chapatti making unit. There is an allegation from the side of complainant that  the opposite party  made belief  the complainant  that the machineries  supplied  are new one  but it was  second-hand one , the machineries supplied to the complainant were re painted  and some of the parts were  replaced also.  But the complainant could not establish the allegation. Considering the entire aspects and documents it can be concluded that the opposite party supplied to the complainant a defective substandard machine and thereby we find there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. 

10.         It is already noted that there is no except Ext. A3 to establish the cost of the product, but it cannot be treated as a bill paid by the complainant to the opposite party.  It is also noted that Ext. A5 is a tax invoice admitted by both sides  issued to the  complainant by the opposite party.  Ext. A5 shows cost of the machineries as Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- respectively.  The Commission accept Ext. A5 document and we find the cost of the machinery as Rs.1,00,000/-. The complainant is entitled to refund the cost of the defective machine. It can be seen that due to supply of defective machine, the complainant suffered financial as well as other inconveniences.    Complainant suffered mental agony also.  So complainant is entitled to   compensation also.  We allow Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation  on account of unfair trade practice  adopted by the  opposite party  and thereby caused  financial and other  loss to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as cost of the proceedings. 

11.   In the above facts and circumstances the Commission allows the complaint as follows:

1. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.  1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) to the complainant as the cost of the defective machine.
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) on account of unfair trade practice and thereby caused financial and other inconvenience to the complainant.
3. The opposite party also direct to pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
4. The complainant shall return the defective machine to the opposite party on payment of cost and compensation by opposite party. It is further clarified that the opposite has to take back the defective machine from where it is installed at the cost of opposite party.

          The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which, the  complainant is entitled to get 12% interest  on the above said amount  from the date of this  order till realisation.

       Dated this 1^st day of February, 2022.