DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of November,2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President,
: A. Vidhya, Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
Date of Filing 21/06/2023
CC /161/2023
Shibuneesa, W/o Abdul Azeez, - Complainant
Thevath Valappil,
Ezhumangad,
Arangottukara, P. O,
Palakkad -679 533.
(party in person )
Basheer. O., - Opposite Party
Madayi Business Group,
MP 7/267,
KSTP Road,
Payangadi R.S,
Kannur - 670358
(By Adv. Jayasree. V. )
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member.
- Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complaint is all about the Coconut Oil Pressing machine and accessories purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. The following are the complaint pleadings.
A. The complainant purchased a Coconut Oil Pressing machine and accessories from the OP for Rs. 2,24,860/-and the amount was paid in 3 installments through the bank accounts of the complainant and her husband.The machineries were installed and the unit started functioning in August, 2022.The OP had informed that the machinery is having warranty of one year and promised to give the original tax invoice incorporating the warranty details. But the OP has not given the invoice yet.
B. The machinery became dysfunctional in September, 2022.Since the defect couldn't be resolved by local mechanics the OP agreed to give a spare machine and the complainant brought it spending the shifting expenses.
C. As the problem continued, the OP replaced the machine with a higher capacity machine and charged Rs.1,03,400/- additionally. The complainant allege that the replacement given is an old machine which was not giving the required production and finally became dysfunctional in February 2023.
D. Due to the malfunctioning of the machine, the raw material got spoilt.
E. Since the OP did not issue the tax invoice for the machinery, she couldn't avail machinery loan at low interest rate from KSIDC with subsidy, instead had to avail gold loan at higher rate of interest. Further she could not get the concession for electricity tarif available to industries.Now she has obtained a quotation for installing a new machinery.
Due to the above mentioned acts of the OP, the complainant suffered huge loss in business and approached this Commission seeking the reliefs amounting to Rs. 21,21,953/- towards the cost of machinery, loss in business, expenses incurred for construction of unit building, damage to raw materials etc. apart from mental agony.
- Notice was issued to the opposite party. He entered appearance, but was set ex-parte as the version was filed after the statutory period and hence rejected.
- The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A16 as evidence.Ext. A1 is the copy of the Aadhar card of the complainant, A2&A3 are the copies of bank challans showing payment of 1,00,000/-&1,25,000/- to the OP,A4 is the copy of quotation issued by the OP for the machine and accessories,A5 is the copy of screen shots of payment made to the OP,A6 & A7 are the records of Gold loans availed by the complainant from SCB Thirumittakode, A8 is the repair bill issued by Noble Electrical works, Pattambi,A9 &A10 are the books of account maintained by the complainant, A11 is the building tax paid receipt, A12 is the receipt issued by SCB Thirumittakode for the payment to the loan account of the complainant, A13 is the Federal Bank Credit Card statement showing the payment for diesel, A14 is the receipt issued from Thirumittakode Panchayath for regularizing the unit,A15 is the Udayam Registration certificate obtained for the complainant's firm, and A16 is the Quotation for the new machinery issued by M/S Alokin Motors Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore. We are not relying on Exts A9 & A10 since they are prepared by the complainant herself.
- From the proof affidavit filed and the documents adduced as evidence by the complainant we can draw the following conclusions.
A. The machinery supplied was defective and the complainant had suffered huge loss in business and mental agony.Further, the OP failed to take any steps to rectify the defect or to make proper replacement inspite of continuous follow up by the complainant.
B. The OP has not issued tax invoice to the complainant for the machinery purchased inspite of collecting GST. This is an unfair trade practice and caused loss to the complainant by way of subsidy and other benefits available to industrial units. Also she had to pay penalty to the Panchayath for regularizing the unit.
C.The complainant has to install a new machinery for restarting the unit.
5. In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.
- Refund of Rs. 3,28,260/-towards the cost of machinery along with interest from 20/08/22 @10% pa.
- Compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 towards the loss in business.
3. Compensation of .Rs. 3,00,000/-for Unfair Trade Practice
4. Compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and
5. Cost Rs. 10,000/-
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment
Pronounced in the open court on this the 20th day of November,2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
