DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th day of October, 2023

Present  : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President

             : Smt. Vidya.A., Member

    : Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

                  Date of filing: 03/07/2023                                                            

CC/169/2023

Unnikrishnan V

S/o Thamikutty

Varikkakuzhiyil Ho  - Complainant

Parudur, Karambathur

Palakkad - 679 305   

(By Adv. K V Surendran)

                          V/s

Bestdeal Machineries Pvt.Ltd,

58/15, Ground Floor,     -                Opposite Party

Asok Nagar, New Delhi 110 018

New Delhi

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

Prepared by Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member

1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief

The complainant purchased a Double Die fully Automatic Thali Machine from the opposite party paying Rs 300000/-. Another Rs 1000/- was paid as installation charges and Rs.11500/- as transportation charges. According to the complainant, the opposite party had assured that the machine can produce 19000-22000 pieces in 8 hours working per day. After 4 weeks of installation, the machine started giving problems such as, damage to belt, decrease in sharpness of die, etc. After several contacts, a person was sent by the opposite party to rectify the defects. Even after the repair done by him the machine continued to give problems like cutting problem, paper getting stuck,pulley key damage, heater complaint etc. The machine is not giving the assured production of 19000-22000 pieces as promised in 8 hours and  it is not having the capacity and durability to work continuously for 8 hours. This is due to the poor quality of the machinery supplied. Hence he approached this Commission seeking refund of the cost of Rs 300000/-and installation charges of Rs 1000/- along with interest @12% from  6/7/21, Rs 200000/- towards the damages caused to the complainant and Rs 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings.

• Notices was issued to the opposite party. They did not enter appearance, hence was set ex-parte.
• The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 as evidence. Ext- A1 is the invoice for the machine purchased
• The Proof Affidavit filed by the complainant without any counter from the opposite party is sufficient to prove a prima facie case against the opposite party. Further the opposite party has not utilised the opportunity given by this Commission to present their side of the issue.
• In the   result,  the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

•  The opposite party is directed to refund Rs 301000/- towards the cost  

     of the machine and installation charges, with interest @ 10% pa from

06/07/21 till the date of payment.

•  The opposite party is liable to pay Rs 200 000/- towards the suffering   

     and mental agony caused.

•  The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs 25000/- towards cost of

litigation.

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 open court on this the 25^th day of October, 2023.

     Sd/-

                                                                                 Vinay Menon V

                                                                                  President   

Sd/-

                                                                                      Krishnankutty N K

                                                                                             Member