IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.21/2023 (Filed on 25/01/2023)
Complainant : Veena M.S,
Kalariparambil House,
Moolavattom P.O,
Kottayam - 686 012.
Vs.
Opposite party : Arjun Krishna,
Ardav Machineries,
Puthenpurayil Building,
M.C Road, Thuruthy P.O,
Changanacherry – 686 535.
(By Adv: Vivek Mathew Varkey)
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant started a unit in December 2020 to manufacture coconut oil for the purpose of finding self-employment. The complainant purchased the machines for the purpose from the opposite party Arjun Krishna on 2/12/2017 by paying Rs.2,73,700/- . The opposite party was neither having ISO certificate nor GST registration. The complainant was not aware of such authenticity or registration. The machinery was permanently inoperative within the first 3 months itself and thereafter the opposite party himself had repaired the said machine for 15 times within 2 years. When the unit started the complainant’s husband abandoned his job. The plaintiff’s family, consisting of two children has no income other than from the coconut oil production unit. The complainant has suffered losses due to the lack of service on the part of the opposite party. As such, the complaint has been filed praying for compensation for the sufferings and losses.
Though the opposite party received notice from this Commission and appeared before this Commission he did not care to file any version even after availing ample opportunities. Hence the opposite party was set ex-parte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with two documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2. The complainant was examined as PW1. Though the opposite party was set ex-parte, he was given opportunity to cross examine the complainant.
The complainant’s case is that she had started a coconut oil production unit with the machineries purchased from the opposite party which got defective causing difficulties in the operation of the unit and mental agony to the complainant due to financial loss. The opposite party was set ex-parte as he did not care to file version but on application has permitted to cross examine the complainant and argue the matter as per the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court in ARN Infrastructure India Limited Vs. Hara Prasad Ghosh 2023 KHC online 7107.
The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 which is the bank statement in which it is clear that the complainant has transferred the amount to the opposite party through her account in Federal Bank, Ernakulam Branch. Exhibit A2 is the quotation dated 20/10/2020 issued by the opposite party to the complainant quoting the price for Oil Rotary Rs.2,00,000/-, for 10HP Motor Rs.25,000/- and for the accessories like oil, belt, oil starter, capacitor Rs.5,000/-, GST Rs.41,400/-, Cess Rs.2,300/-.
Though the complainant has alleged that the above said parts were defective and the machine stopped after 3 months of purchase, she has not sought for any evidence through an expert to prove that the said machine is defective and non-usable. Without an expert evidence we cannot arrive at a conclusion that the machine had manufacturing defect. Without ascertaining the manufacturing defects, the opposite party cannot be ordered to refund the full price of the machine or replace the defective machine with a new one.
The complainant has categorically deposed that the machine purchased from the opposite party was defective and she could not use it properly even for the first 3 months. The opposite party was set ex-parte and in the absence of any contrary evidence we are inclined to find that the machine supplied by the opposite party was defective and the opposite party is found to be deficient in his service by supplying a defective machine to the complainant.
Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate the financial and mental hardships occurred to the complainant due to the non-working of the machine. Hence we allow the complaint in part by the following order:
The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs only) towards compensation for the loss suffered by the complainant along with an interest @9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint ie. 25.01.2023 till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 15th day of November, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Witness from the side of the complainant :-
PW1 - Veena M.S
Witness from the side of the opposite party :
Nil
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Statement of Account of the complainant’s
bank account for the period 01/06/2020 to 01/06/2021
showing the transaction between the complainant and
the opposite party
A2 - Copy of Quotation dated 20/10/2020 issued by
the opposite party to the complainant
Exhibits from the side of Opposite party :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
