Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Subhasish Roy
For OP/OPs : None
Date of filing of the case :28.09.2020
Date of Disposal of the case :10.08.2023
(2)
Final Order / Judgment dtd.10.08.2023
Complainants above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid opposite party u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for direction to the OP to replace the defective machine by supplying a new one or to refund the entire amount of Rs.8,54,600/-, compensation amount to Rs.11,00,000/- and cost of the case amounting to Rs.45,000/-.
She alleged in the petition of complaint that complainant is the Self Help Group namely Shrimoyee Swanirbhar Ghoshti. Present petitioner is the Chairperson of the said organization. They have decided to purchased one Sanitary Napkin Manufacturing Machine and accordingly complainant had talked with the OP. OP /company agreed to supply the said machine with the consideration amount of Rs.8,54,600. Complainant had applied for loan under PMEGP scheme before the State Bank of India, Krishnagar Brnach and it was duly sanctioned by the Bank Authority. OP initially gave advance amounting to Rs.4,27,000/- on 04.09.2019 in favour of the OP. Thereafter, OP/ company delivered the said machine on 25.11.2019 and on the same date complainant paid the rest amount of Rs.4,27,600/- to the OP. Relating to supply the aforesaid machine one MOU was signed on 13.08.2019 in between complainant and OP wherein OP was agreed to provide service for one year from the date of installation of machine with the condition for monthly visit for service and providing training regarding operation of that machine. On 26.11.2019 one Debasish Roy as representative of OP came to install the machine. On 27.11.2019 and 28.11.2019 OP sent one technician but it was found that machine was not working properly as such it was failed to produce any materials.
Moreover, OP also took money for supplying of raw-materials but they also failed to supply the same. Complainant gave several mails to OP but OP did not take any positive steps. Hence, the complainant filed this case.
Case is running ex-parte against the OP vide order no.14 dated 20.10.2022.
Thereafter, OP appeared in this record and had filed a petition on 25.11.2022 praying for vacating of the order of ex-parte hearing. Said petition was rejected vide order no. 20 dated 08.02.2023 and since then case is also running ex-parte against OP.
Trial
During trial complainant filed affidavit in chief. He also filed certain documents.
(3)
Documents
Complainant at the time of filing of this case filed the following documents.
- Original copy of Certificate issued by SBI...........(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of letter for Confirmation of NULM Code issued by Krishnagar Municipality dated 10.05.2019...........(One sheet)
- Computerised copy of Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme dated 18.01.2019...........(One sheet)
- Original copy of E-Way bill dated 25.11.2019..........(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Invoice cum Road Challan dated 25.11.2019..........(One sheet)
- Xerox copy of Invoice cum Road Challan dated 06.09.2019.......(One sheet)
- Original copy of Tax Invoice dated 15.11.2019..........(One sheet)
- Original copy of MOU dated 13.08.2019.........(Three sheets)
- Original copy of Machine Hand over Report dated 26.11.2019........(One sheet)
10)Xerox copy of document issued by Srimoyee Swanirbhar Ghosti.........(One sheet)
Brief Notes of Argument
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with Reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the complainant, affidavit in chief filed by the complainant, documents filed by the complainant and BNA filed by the complainant. We have carefully considered these documents.
Aforesaid affidavit in chief is nothing but unchallenged testimony. On perusal of said affidavit in chief , we find that complainant corroborated the allegation which he stated in the petition of complaint.
On perusal of documents dated 10.05.2019, we find that Krishnagar Municipality gave confirmation of NULM Code and they also confirmed the letter of Self Help Group namely Shrimoyee Swanirbhar Ghosthi Group vide code no. SHG19230800729.
On perusal of the said document, we find that Shrimoyee Swanirbhar Ghosthi is a Self Help Group and present complainant namely
(4)
Madhuparna Sengputa Banerjee is the authorised person of the said Self Help Gropu.
On perusal of affidavit in chief, we find that complainant alleged that they purchased one machine from the OP with the value of Rs.8,54,603/- and said machine was supplied in favour of the complainant on 25.11.2019 through E-Way Bill.
On perusal of invoice come road challan , we find that value of the machine has been described as Rs.8,54,600/-.
On perusal of another document dated 15.11.2019, we find that complainant paid Rs.61,000/- as value of raw-materials.
On perusal of MOU dated 13.08.2019, we find that said document has been executed in between complainant and the Director , Washnonomich Fulcrum Private Ltd. As per the said document OP was agreed to supply one machine in favour of the complainant.
On perusal of machine hand over report dated 26.11.2019, we find taht said machine was handed over in favour of the complainant on 26.11.2019 by one Debasish Roy.
On perusal of copy of another document , we find that machine was supplied and installed on 26.11.2019 but complainant did not get any product. Products were coming by way of car. Head of the products were found defective and there was a problem of embracing.
Moreover, complainant did not get raw-materials. Entire defects have mentioned over the said document. Representative of OP also put his signature over the said document. Complainant also put signature over the said document. So, It is clear before us that both the complainant and representative of OP found that aforesaid machine was not working properly since the date of installation. Said machine failed to give any satisfactory product within two, three days from the date of installation. We find from the record that relating to the defect of the aforesaid machine OP did not take any initiative to repair the said machine or to replace the said machine. Even they did not take any initiative to supply the raw-materials as per the memo dated 15.11.2019.
On perusal of record , we find that complainant is the consumer and OP is the service provider. We also find that aforesaid act on the part of the OP is nothing but deficiency in service.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion , it is clear before us that complainant has established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly the complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
(5)
In the result, present case succeeds.
Hence,
It is
Ordered
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) to be paid by OP in favour of the complainant.
OP is directed to take steps for repairing of the aforesaid machine in satisfactory working condition and to the satisfaction of complainant within 45 days from this day or to refund Rs.8,54,600/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of receive of the money that is from 04.09.2019 for Rs.4,27,000/- and from 25.11.2019 for Rs.4,27,600/- to till the date of actual payment positively within next 45 days from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
OP is directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh) in favour of the complainant for his harassment, mental pain and agony within 45 days from this date failing which complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties as free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,) ..................... ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
