Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/77/2024

M/S ROYAL WOODWORKS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR TANUJA KASHYAP - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANG METAL INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/Partner/Director/Authorised Signatory. - Opp.Party(s)

VIKASH KASHYAP

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/77/2024
Date of Institution	:	2/2/2024
Date of Decision	:	4/10/2024

 

M/S Royal Woodworks, Plot No. 545, Industrial Area Phase II, Chandigarh through its proprietor Tanuja Kashyap

Complainant

Versus

 

1 ANG Metal Industries, Shop no. 8, Maa Durga Complex, Haibatpur Road, Derabassi, Punjab 140507 through its Proprietor/Partner/Director/Authorised Signatory.

2 Deepak Aswal Proprietor/Partner/Director/Authorised Signatory, ANG Metal Industries, Shop no. 8, Maa Durga Complex, Haibatpur Road, Derabassi, Punjab 140507.

3. State Bank Of India Through its Branch Manger S.M.E Center Sector 17-B  Chandigarh.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Vikas Kashyap, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP No.1 exparte. Sh. Akash Khurcha, Advocate for OP No.2. Sh. Inderjeet Singh, Advocate proxy for Sh. Manoj Lakhotia, Advocate for OP  No.3.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that   OP No. 1 ANG Metal Industries is in the Business of manufacturing and selling steel products and machines as well as in CNC Wood Router. The complainant was approached by Deepak Aswal on behalf of OP no 1 and explained about CNC Wood Router and provided their quotation Annexure C-3 regarding the same. OPs No.1&2 claimed that their machine is best in market and they use only genuine original parts. The complainant on the recommendation  of the OP no. 2 opted to purchase a CNC Wood router (hereinafter referred to be as subject machine),  by obtaining a loan of Rs.6,65,000/- from OP No.3 and complete details of loan are annexed as Annexure C-4 . On payment of entire amount the complainant had made payment to the OPs No.1&2 to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/- on 18.11.2022  whereas the subject machine  was delivered to the complainant in the month of February 2023 and the invoice Annexure C-5 was issued by Ops No.1&2 on 27.5.2023 for the amount of Rs.6,49,000/-. Thereafter the complainant asked the  OPs No.1&2 about the less amount shown in the invoice but with no result. After purchase of the subject machine  the complainant had taken various assignments to complete the work and  the subject machine was mainly used for 3D carved plates with wave pattern, cutting cabinet doors, crafts wooden doors etc.  However, the complainant was shocked to see  the working of the subject machine as the same used to stop working in between and started hanging while running and whenever it was used to cut  it was not cutting the material accurately which is shown in the photographs Annexure C-6. On inspection of the subject machine, it was found by the complainant that several parts which were promised in the brochure were missed and some parts were used of inferior quality material.  Immediately, the complainant approached OP No.2 who assured the complainant that he will remove all the discrepancies  and will replace some parts with original company  parts which were promised in the brochure  but the matter was  delayed by the OPs on one pretext or the other. The photograph showing cheap Chinese parts used in the machine and not mentioned in brochure are annexed as Annexure C-7.  Thereafter the complainant sent several messages to the Ops No.1&2 to remove the discrepancies and defects from the subject machine but they refused to do so.  The complainant has got the subject machine installed on a rented plot  for which the complainant is paying Rs.15,000/- per month and in addition to that he is also paying Rs.13,000/- to OP No3  towards the loan. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1&2. OPs No.1&2 were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP No.1  was properly served and when OP did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 30.5.2024.
   3. OP No.2  resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version by way of affidavit, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action and concealment of material facts. On merits  denied that any  payment was made by the complainant to the answering OP, by alleging that in fact the answering Op was working with OP No.1 as Sales Manager  on salary basis and he was not authorized signatory to OP No.1 rather  he had signed the invoice Annexure C-5 at the instance of OP No.1. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   4. OP No.3  resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability and cause of action. On merits  admitted that the  answering OP  advanced loan  of Rs.9.50 lakh i.e. cash credit of Rs.2.85 lakh and term loan of Rs.6.65 lakh for purchase of the subject machine on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the loan agreement.   Further alleged that the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed qua it.
   5.  Complainant chose not to file rejoinder.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the contesting parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the contesting parties that  the complainant had purchased the subject machine from OP No.1 by getting the same financed from OP No.3 to the tune of Rs.6,65,000/- as is also evident from copy of statement of account Annexure CX but OP No.1 had issued the invoice only of Rs.6,49,000/- as is evident from Annexure C-5 and the subject machine started giving problem which could not be set right by the OPs No.1&2, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the subject machine is defective and is irreparable  and the OPs No.1&2 are deficient in service and indulged in unfair trade practice by supplying defective machine to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for, as is the case of the complainant or if the  complaint being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of contesting OPs.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-3 quotation clearly indicates that the OP No.1  is in the business of metal industries and had given the quotation qua the subject machine  by giving email address of OP No.2 with his contact number. Annexure C-5 is the tax invoice which clearly indicates that OP No.2 had  appended his signature on the same being authorized signatory of OP No.1 and  they  had issued the invoice only to the tune of Rs.6,49,000/- despite of fact that an amount of Rs.6,65,000/-  was got transferred by complainant in the account of OP No.1, making it clear that OP No.1  has manipulated the bill of the subject machine.  Perusal of  Photographs Annexure C-6 to C-7 clearly indicates that the subject machine has not given results as assured by the Ops No.1&2 while selling the same to the complainant  and also  it is the case of the complainant that the parts used in the subject machine were of inferior quality.
   3. Not only this Annexure C-8 (colly) are the messages sent by the complainant to OP No.2, which clearly indicate that  the complainant has approached OP NO.2 several time  by sending whatsapp messages but the OPs No.1&2 did not care even respond to the said messages.
   4. In view of the foregoing discussion, it stands proved on record that the OPs NO.1&2 have sold a defective machine by grabbing a huge amount from the complainant and thereby the OPs No.1&2 are indulged in unfair trade practice  especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs No.1&2, hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs No.1&2 are directed as under :-
   1. to refund ₹6,65,000/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of payment  till onwards
   2. to pay ₹60,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
5. This order be complied with by the OPs No.1&2 jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. The complainant shall return the subject machine in question to the OPs No.1&2 and the OPs No.1&2 shall collect the same at their own risk and cost.
7.  Complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
9. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member