PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.- 48/2022

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member

Uday Singh,

S/o Late Kanchan Singh

R/o- Mahuldihi, Ward No.1, Po/Ps-Kuchinda,

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha.                                                        ...………..Complainant

Versus

1. Vijaya Machinary And sales Corporation,

Near IDBI Bank, Fafadih Chowk, Raipur, Chhattisgarh represented through Vijaya Verma, Properitor.

2. Dinesh Agrawal, Founder and CEO of Indian Mart Inter Mesh Ltd.,

 6^th Floor, Tower-2, Assotech Business Cresterra,

Plot No. 22, Sec. 135 Naoida-2013059, U.P                 .…………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :-       Sri. G.P. Lal, Adv. & Associates
2. For the O.P. No.1                           :-       Exparte
3. For the O.P. No.2                           :-       Sri. B.K. Purohit, Advocate

Date of Filing:07.07.2022,  Date of Hearing :04.07.2023  Date of Judgement : 08.08.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant had a machine for manufacturing of paper plate (Khali and Dona). This business is for his self-employment to support his livelihood to maintain his family. He was continuing it since last eight years. The Complainant and his family engaged in this business to earn their livelihood and extending their support. The Complainant and his family decided to expand it and purchased a machine to manufacture raw materials and for that Rs. 10,00,000/- will be required. So he contacted Punjab National Bank, Kuchinda Branch. After knowing the facts the Branch manager suggested him to file the quotation of the required machineries. In the year 2-021, the Complainant contacted the OP No. 2 and collected the cell number of the OP No. 1 and requested for quotation. On 09.01.2022 the OP No. 1 sent quotation which has been submitted by the Complainant before Punjab National Bank. After receiving the quotation and conducting due enquiry, the Bank Sanctioned loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- in favour of the Complainant. Out of which the Bank remitted Rs. 3,00,000/- through online transfer to the account of the OP No. 1 dt. 31.01.2022. After transfer of the amount, the Complainant informed the OP No. 1 over phone and the OP No. 1 assured the Complainant to supply the machineries within two or three days but the machineries were not supply in due date and the Op No. 1 did not respond the phone calls. After twenty days the Op No. 1 picked up the phone and fabricated a story that said machineries are not ready. In spite of repeated request, the issue was not resolved by the OP No. 1, finding no other way, the Complainant sent a legal notice through his advocate on dtd. 20.04.2022 which was returned back. After five months, the Op No. 1 delivered incomplete machine to the Complainant which was not in workable condition. There after the Complainant complaint the matter to the Op No. 1 about deficiency in the machine supplied by him. After knowing the facts, the Op NO. 1 assured the Complainant to correct the deficiency by sending service engineer but he has not taken any initiative to resolve the issue.
2. The OP No. 1 failed to appear and gave version within time although notice served sufficiently to him.

The Written Version of the OP No. 2 is that the Op No. 2 only provides a technology platform to enable a seller/service provider in advertising their commercial goods or services to general public. The OP No. 2 is not involved in any sale or purchase and only facilitates a technology platform to the users to advertise their products and services. There is no transaction-based commission or consideration charged by the OP No. 2 from the supplier or buyer. Post discovery of the prospective supplier, the Buyer and Supplier without any monitoring and knowledge of the OP No. 2discusses, negotiates and conclude the transaction offline. The OP No. 2 does not take part in the actual transaction that may have taken place between the Buyers and Suppliers and hence is not a party to any contract for sale negotiated between the buyers and suppliers. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, as there is no cause of action against the OP No. 2.

3. From the above it is found that the OP No. 1 has not taken any step to repair the machine for which the Complainant unable to use the said machines for which the Complainant suffered a lot and debarred from his livelihood earnings. So the OP No. 1 is deficient in service and unfair trade practice by non-supply in time.  In the other hand the Op No. 2 only provides a technology platform to enable a seller/service provider in advertising their commercial goods or services to general public. The OP No. 2 is not involved in any sale or purchase and only facilitates a technology platform to the users to advertise their products and services. So there is no deficiency found on the part of the OP No. 2. Accordingly it is ordered.

ORDER

The O.P No. 1 is directed to repair the machine of the Complainant and handover the machine to the Complainant in good and running condition within 30 days of receipt of this order. The OP No. 1 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Complainant towards loss of livelihood earnings from the month of filing of the case till realization of the same, further to refund the Complainant Rs. 10,000/- which was unfairly charged from the Complainant, further to pay  Rs. 30,000/- towards negligence, deficiency in service to the Complainant as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 8^th day of July, 2023.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.