BEFORE

District Consumer  Redressal Forum,

Dhalai, Kamalpur

           Case No. 3/CC/KMP/ of 2016

                   Sri  Prahallad Choudhury

                   S/O Lt. Paritosh Choudhury,

Of Ambassa Coloney, PS- Ambassa,

                   Dhalai, Tripura

                                                ……………………     Complainant

                                               Vs

1. Sri Dul Kumar Dutta

          S/o Lt. Hema Nath Dutta

          Director ¨PRINTER HUB INC PVT LTD¨

          Alakananda Apartment, Flat No. 4E, Tarun                                    Nagar Bye Lane- 1, Guwahati, District- Kamrup, Assam

          PIN- 781005

2. Sri Abhijit Saha

          S/o Lt. Anil Ch. Saha,

                             Director ¨PRINTER HUB INC PVT LTD¨

                             Imran Complex,  Ground Floor, G.S Road                                                         Ulubari, Gwuahati, Assam,

                             PIN-781007.

                                                  ……………… Opposite Parties.

                                        Present

                       Sri S.K. MAJUMDER.

                                  President,

             District Consumer Redressal Furum,

                           Dhalai, Kamalpur.

M E M B E R S

 1.   Smt. Subhadra Sen

                     2.   Dr. Jiteswar Ahir.

LD. C O U N S E L S

For the Complainant         : Mr.Subrata Debnath, Ld.Advocate

For the Opp. Party no. 1: Mr. Indranil Chakraborty, Ld.Advocate.                                             

                    Date of Institution   :       16.02.2016           

 Date of argument     :     23.02.2017    

 Date of judgment :    15.06.2017

J U D G M E N T

1.                          This is a complaint US 12 read with section 2 (d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act filed by complainant Sri Prahallad Choudhury.

2.                          The facts of the case lie in a brief compass, the complainant having experience in operating of Xerox machine  and printer decide to set up a business of printing as there was demand of printing within the locality of Ambassa market. He, being an un-employed person  made a prayer to District Industrial Center (for short DIC), Govt. of Tripura for granting of loan under PMRY scheme.  The complainant through inter net  contacted with a company namely, ¨PRINTER HUB INC PVT. LTD¨ vide corporate identity no. 422219AS2014PTC011862 office at Guwahati. The Opposite Party no. 1 Sri Dul Kumar Dutta and OP no. 2 Sri Abhijit Saha being the Directors of said ¨PRINTER HUB INC PVT. LTD¨ used to manage the business of the company. The complainant  intended to buy one EDGEI-PRINT K3308 DIGITAL INJECT PRINTER with 4 pin heads, printing inks & printing software with konika head (42PL/512)-400 square feet per Hrs. along with some other accessories. In response to his offer the complainant received a quotation vide No. PHIPL/14-15/055, dated 27.12.2014 for supplying the digital inkjet printer and other accessories mentioned in the said quotation at a price of Rs. 9,51,887/- suject to advance payment within 3 to 4 weeks. The Ops also agreed to install the printer by the Engineer of the company and also to provide necessary training to the operator at the business site. i.e. the price of the printer and other accessories agreed to be supplied by the company of the opposite party. The department having found viability recommended his project to the SBI Ambassa Branch for necessary sanction of loan amounting to Rs. 9,51,887/- under the relevant scheme and got the sanction and issued the draft in favour of the company which was acknowledged by the company vide its letter dated 5.5 205 (Exhibit-2) and promised to ditchpach the printer and other materials under order shortly by road transportation. The further case of the complainant is that after placing the order for the printer, he took rent of shop premises at Ambassa to run the business and also appointed the required number of workers to run the business but did not ditchpach as promised. However, after several requests and issuing of a demand notice though advocate, the OP send a flex printer with 8 head (colour jet Neptune) in place of Konika Digital Printer without  accessories as per quotation in spite of receiving full amount in advance. The OPs also failed to send the engineers of the company to install the machine and to give training of the workers of the complainant. The workers remain idle having no work. The commitment had to pay salary of engaged workers and the rent of the shop premises. Having of no suitable response the complainant send demand notice to the OPs through his Lawyer on 28.09.2015 claiming compensation about lost incurred by the complainant due to deficiency in service. The complainant, accordingly, prays for compensation of Rs. 15,52025/- towards various heads with interest @ Rs. 12 per annum  from the date of payment of the consideration money against printer machine.                                                                                   

3.                          The OP no. 2 Sri Abhijit Saha Director of the Company contested  the petition by filing Written objection. The OP No 1 appeared by engaging  learned Advocate Mr. Indranil Chakraborty on 04.05.2016 but did not file any written objection. The OP No. 2 in his written objection WO and admitted the facts regarding agreement to supply the Printer machine vide  PHIPL/14-15/055, dated 27.12.2014 delay of 8 months to deliver and install the machin as complained by the complainant. However, the plea of OP No1 is that that he took initiative to handover the said machine as earlier as possible but failed as  OP no. 1 Mr. Dul Kr. Dutta the other Director of the company misappropriate the money of the company and did not cooperate with him to run the business. However, after discussion with the complainant as well as the branch manager of SBI Ambassa over telephone he supplied one upgraded high quality machine of reputed brand namely ¨ Colourjet Neptune¨ having 8 head lying in their stock. OP no. 2 on 23rd Feb, 2016 transfered rupees one lakh in the account of the complainant. Due to non cooperation by the other director Mr. Dul Kr. Dutta, OP no. 2 he failed to send Engineer at Ambassa to install the machine in time. However, subsequently two skilled Engineers namely Subhas Kr. Jadev and Sourabh Saha of the company installed the said upgraded printer and also send the other accessories through Sarada Roadlines transport for smooth running of the machine.

4.                          The complainant adduced his evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the same in the complaint. He was duly cross examined, he also produced some documents namely (I) Exbt. 1: Photocopy of the quotations submitted by the OP Printer Hub INC Pvt. Ltd, (ii)Exbt. 2: Letter of Ops. to SBI Ambassa acknowledging payment, (iii) Exbt. 3: Cash memo issued by OP amounting to Rs. 64,138/-, (iv) Exbt. 4: Demand Draft prepared in favour of the OP, (v) Ext. 5: Business Registration  Certificate in favour of the petitioner, (vi) Exbt. 6: VAT registration certificate in favour of the petitioner and (vii)  Exb.7: (series) 61 vouchers as proof of payment of salary and shop room.

5.                          The OP no. 2 also adduced his evidence by submitting his examination-in-chief in affidavit and reiterated the same as stated in the written objection.

6.                          On perusal of the statement of the parties and examining the documentary evidence related to the transaction it appears that the Opposite Parties received Rs.951887/- (Rupees Nine lacs fifty-one thousand eight hundred eighty-seven) only by a Demand Draft from SBI, Ambassa Branch to supply the following materials: (1) one quantity of EDGEPRINT K3308 DIGITAL INKJET PRINTER With 4 print Heads, Printing Inks & Printing Software with Konica head (42PL/512)- 400 square feet per Hrs is amount of Rs. 8,85000/-, Sl. No. (2) four quantity of FLEX 220 GSM FL4FT (699.66 X 4 Roll), price Rs. 9,795.40/-, Sl no. (3) four quantity of FLEX 220 GSM FL 10 FT (1722.24 X 4 Roll), price Rs. 24,111.40/- and Sl. no. (4) FLEX 220 GSM FL 10 FT (1022.58 X 4 Roll) price of Rs. 14,316.20/- in total of Rs. 9,51,887/- within three to four weeks from the date of payment (Exbt. 1). Exhibit 2 is the acknowledgment of receipt payment through draft  amount of Rs. 9,51,887/- against the order of the printing machine and other accessories by the complainant. On perusal of the said acknowledgment  on the exhibited it appears that the OP gave commitment to disburse the machine shortly through road transport.

7.                          The OP No2 admitted the above transaction and he also admitted the delay in delivery of the Printer machine in terms of the contract. However, an argument is put before us by the learned advocate for the OP No2 that the machine which subsequently delivered was up graded quality with high value than the printer which was agreed to be supplied. It is the further contention of the OP No.2 is that the OP No.2 transferred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in th account of the complainant which has been admitted by the complainant in his cross examination.

8.                          On examining the documents submitted by the complainant it further reveals that many correspondences was made by the complainant when the machine was not delivered in time. Finally, on 28.09.2015 the complainant issued demand notice through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Bimal Deb and only thereafter the machine was delivered. It is admitted fact the machine was supposed to be installed by the Engineer of the company but after delivery of the machine the OP did not sent the Engineer in time for installation of the printer. Due to such delay the complainant suffered loss of business for about 8(eight) months. During this period the complainant had to calculate the interest on loan taken by him, payment of rent of shop premises and the salary of the staffs engaged by him to operate the machine.

9.                          The complainant in his complaint has mentioned the details of the expenditure and his loss due to delay in delivery of the printer and other ailed accessories in the table as follows:

Table of expenditure and Loss

10.                        We have perused the above chart  along with the relevant documentary evidence. In the chart there are 13 items (a to m) and out of the total item the claimant cannot have any claim regarding item No. a, b, g and i, as those expenditures are Capital expenditure in nature in as much as the Ops already delivered and installed the machine as admission of the complainant. No documentary evidence produced regarding expenditure under item No.(m) in the chart/table. So we are unable to make any order of compensation against item No.(m).

11.                        The complainant claimed compensation for salary paid to his manager, one staff and night guard appointed by him for eight months. In this regard he produced the vouchers showing the payments. But the complainant did not produce the letter of appointment and those employees/workers also did not appear as witness to prove that they received the remuneration/salary against the vouchers produced by the complainant. There was no difficulties on behalf of the complainant to produce them as witnesses. So we are unable to consider the vouchers of payment against the salary of employee/workers produced by the complainant to asses the compensation towards the salary paid by him for eight months. However, the complainant has definitely engaged at least one employee to operate the machine when the Ops agreed to provide training on installation of the Printer. So we assess compensation towards the payment of salary of an employee for 8 months amounting to (Rs.3000 x 8) Rs.24,000/- who remained idle due to non installation of machine by the Ops.

                              We have no hesitation to hold that the complainant paid rent to the Ambassa Motor Stand Development Society as the arrangement of premises for installation of printer is the utmost essential before delivery of the printer. No one would give order of a machine for installation without arrangement of a premise for its installation.  The rent receipt of Rs. 24,000/- are issued by Ambassa Motor Stand Development Society against the payment of rent is considered by us as payment of rent is reasonable which the complainant might have paid under the circumstances and therefore to be compensated and complainant is entitled to get the said amount of Rs 24,000/ towards rent paid by him.

                             The complainant made payment of the printer and other things taking loan form SBI Ambassa Branch for an amount of Rs 9,51,887/- and definitely he incurred interest on bank loan without any business due deficiency in services of the OPs. So he is entitled to get compensation against the interest payable to the Bank which he claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. The OP did not dispute about the interest to be paid by the complainant. But at the same time, the OP has stated that he transferred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of the complainant. The complainant in his cross-examination has admitted that OP transferred an amount of Rs.100,000/- in his account. So we are of the view that the loss towards the interest payable to the bank against loan has been compensated. So we are not inclined to allow a further compensation for the interest on Bank loan. However, the complainant had to suffer high mental agonies due to deficiency in services of the Ops. So we allow compensation for suffering mental agonies for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the complainant.

                              The complainant claimed Rs. 8,00,000/ as loss of income from business for 8 (eight) months. No books of accounts of the present income from his business is produced to support the claim of the complainant. However, considering the amount of investment we inclined to allow a compensation of Rs. 30,000/- towards the loss of income from business.

                             The complainant has to incurred litigation cost in the proceeding. So he is entitled to get the litigation cost. So we direct that the Ops shall pay the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

O R D E R

12.                        Accordingly, it is ordered that the OP no. 1 and 2 are directed to make payment of (Rs.24,000/- + Rs.24,000/- + Rs.20,000/- + Rs.30,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) = Rs. 108,000/- (rupees one lakh eight thousand) only in total within 02(two) months from today.

13.                        The case is disposed of with the above directions. Supply copy of judgments to the parties free of cost.