O R D E R.
By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The case of the Complainant is that he is a Fertilizer dealer, selling fertilizer in Polythene bags and card board Boxes. For printing out the details of the articles contained in the Polythene bag and card board boxes, the Complainant placed an order for a printing machine with modern technology through India Mart and contacted with the 2nd Opposite Party and having attracted by the quality propaganda of the machine given by the Second Opposite Party, who is said to be the Sales Manager of the First Opposite Party, who is the proprietor of the manufacturing unit of the machine, on 06-10-2020 paid an amount of Rs.31,270/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred and seventy only) as directed by the Second Opposite Party. Subsequently the Complainant had paid Rs. 7,730/- to the Opposite Party No.1 on 07/10/2020 as per the direction of the Second Opposite Party towards the costs of the machine. Thereafter on 07-11-2020 a hand held inkjeter printer was supplied to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties by accepting a total amount of Rs. 38,000/- as the cost of the machine. Even though the Opposite Parties received an amount of Rs. 38,000/- they issued a tax invoice for Rs.31,270/- only. Tax invoice was supplied along with the machine and received by the Complainant on 14-11-2020. On 14-11-2020 the Complainant installed the machine in his premises and started printing the bags, the machine was defectively functioning and proper printing could not be made. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Parties and technician. The technician informed to the Complainant that the cartridge functioning is not proper and as per the advice of the technician, machine was sent back to the First Opposite Party through courier. Thereafter there was no response from the side of the Opposite Parties. Then the Complainant several times contacted the Opposite Parties through telephone and Whats app, but there was no response from their side. Finally, as on the last week of January 2021, the Complainant was contacted by the Opposite Parties and informed that the conveyor of the machine should be changed or else another machine with more capacity has to be placed instead of the present machine, and for the said purpose another sum of Rs. 10,000/- should be transferred to the account of the 2nd Opposite Party and accordingly the sum of Rs. 10,000/- was sent to the account on 09-02-2021. In spite of receipt of the said amount, no action was made by the Opposite Parties. Hence the complainant seeking this Commission to give direction to the Opposite Party to supply and install a machine with standard quality or to return Rs. 48,000/- with 12 % interest and also pay compensation and cost of the proceedings.
3. After the admission of the complaint, the Commission issued summons to the Opposite Parties for their appearance. Though the Opposite Party received the notice they failed to appear before this Commission hence this Commission set them ex-parte.
4. The case is posted for ex-parte evidence and the Complainant filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW1 and the document produced was marked as Ext.A1. Ext. A1 is the Tax Invoice, which shows that the alleged hand held inkejet Printer was purchased for an amount of Rs. 31,270/- on 07/11/2020. According to the Complainant he had paid a sum of Rs. 48,000/- to the Opposite Party, but Complainant had not produced any document to prove that the Complainant had paid Rs.7,730/- on 07/10/2020 and Rs.10,000/- on 09/02/2021. When the Complainant could not prove the payment of Rs. 7,730/- and Rs. 10,000/- to the Opposite Party it cannot be considered. As per the Tax Invoice it is only Rs. 31,270/- , only this much of amount can be considered for having paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. In spite of service of notice from this Commission, Opposite Parties remained absent and did not challenged the complaint and hence we have no other option except to believe the facts of the complaint and document filed by the Complainant. In view of the above said reason we hold that the Opposite Parties shall pay Rs. 31,270/-along with 9% interest. The Commission found that there is deficiency of service on
the part of the Opposite Parties and the Complainant sustained difficulties. Hence the Complainant deserves to get compensation and cost of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and
- The Opposite parties are directed to supply and install a machine with standard quality to the Complainant failing which the Opposite Party is directed to refund the sale price of Rs.31,270/-( Rupees Thirty One thousand Two hundred and Seventy only) paid for purchase of the defective machine together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realization to the Complainant.
- The Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation jointly and severally to the Complainant within one month from the date of service of this order.
© The Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand
only) towards cost of this Complaint.
The above order must comply within 30 days of the receipt of this order
failing which the Complainant is entitled to get interest @ 8% per annum for
the above amount from the date of this order till the realization of the amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of July 2022.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Abhilash. P.A. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Tax Invoice. dt:07.11.2020.
Exhibit for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
