Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/78/2020

Brahmaprakash - Complainant(s)

Versus

C.B Enterprises Gravel Proprietor Dinesh Sharma, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K. K. Goel

04 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

                              

                                                                Complaint No.: 78 of 2020.

                                                               Date of Instt:  17.11.2020.

                                                                Date of Order: 04.06.2024                

 

Brahma Prakash aged 51 S/o Sh. Amar Chand C/o Shiksha Bharti High School, Ranila Post Office Ranila Sub Tehsil Bound Kalan, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri.                                                                                                    ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

C.B.Enterprises through proprietor  Dinesh Sharma, Shop No. 227, Om Floor, Om Textile Tower, Near M/s Sandeep Bajaj Showroom, Pur Road, Bhilwara (Rajasthan)- Pin Number 311001, Mobile number-9636497934

 

…...Opposite party.

                   COMPLAINT UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before: -      Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, President

                Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

Present:      Shri Krishan Kumar Goyal, Adv. for the complainant.  

OP already ex parte.

                  

ORDER

1.                The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased  PIC-990 Continuse Machine  for Rs. 60,000/- for making cotton wicks for which he paid Rs. 10,000/- on line on 07.07.2020. on Rs. 50,000/- paid on 28.07.2020. It is alleged that after receiving the payment  the OP gave the bill alongwith machine  vide bill no. 11 dated 10.07.2020 for Rs.59,000/- and stated that the complainant would not have to pay any other amount. The said machine was sent to the complainant by OP through Revogo Transport on 10.07.2020. At the time of delivery Rs. 1250/- were recovered from the complainant which was wrong and against the law.

2.                After purchasing the machine, there was a whatsapp agreement between the parties (complainant and OP) that the OP would sent raw material for making long cotton wicks and the complainant would prepare wicks and sent the product to OP. After communication, it was decided that a copy of agreement would be sent alongwith machine. But OP neither sent a copy of agreement nor talked to the complainant and never delivered the raw material. Thus OP had not fulfilled the terms and conditions of the agreement, which clearly shows that the OP had taken the money by making false promises and cheating only for the purpose of selling the machine. There was a whatsapp chatting on phone in which OP has written that “Raw material price of full white cotton would be Rs. 100 per kg + 5% GST extra.” and finished products buy back rate would be Rs. 350/- or Rs.500/-  per kg. depending on size of the product. Thus the OP had fixed the price of raw material and the price of finished goods, which were not honoured by the OP and disregarded the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further alleged that Ld. Counsel for the complainant sent a legal notice to OP through registered post on 28.08.2020, Sh. Nonihal Singh Gaur, Advocate replied the legal notice in which he had admitted for purchasing a machine in Rs. 60,000/-.Hence, by alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant prayed for directions against the OPs.

1. To pay Rs.35,000/- as mental, physical and economic harassment.
2. To pay Rs. 61,250/- paid to OP by the complainant for purchasing the machine and the litigation expenses besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

3.                 OP had failed to appear or attend hearings/proceedings in this Commission despite serving notice but sent written statement by post which was received in this Commission vide receipt No.4 dated 14.01.2021. But none had appeared on behalf of OP personally.  Hence OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.02.2021.

4.                The OP in written statement had submitted that he had not given any assurance regarding the payment of the expenses for delivery of  the machine through transporter. Rather the cost of delivery was to be borne by the buyer. No such negotiation or contract was finalized before sending the machine. The OP had already told the complainant the price and terms & conditions for purchasing the raw material and only on agreeing to the same the raw material could be sent to the complainant, but the complainant did not execute the agreement and no condition was followed.  The OP further averred that the complainant deliberately does not want to operate the said machine. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

5.                The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavits Ex.CW-1/A, Ex.CW-2/A and documents Ex.C-1/A,Ex.C-1/B & Ex.C-1/C & Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence on dated 22.11.2021

6.                We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the written submission made by the OP.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

7.                We have observed that there is no agreement for supplying raw material and buy back of the finished product. The whatsapp chat Ex.C5 states that

“Automatic long wick machine 1 to 2 persons can work on this machine, A person can produce 3kg to 3.5 kgs per/day 8 to 10 hrs, Depends on manual power and depend on the size.

               Raw materials price full white = 100 per Kg & 5% GST extra.

                   Finished product buy back rate350,500 Depends on size.

Monthly electricity charges Rs. 100 to 200. Buy back agreement minimum of 1 year, maximum to 10 years.”

It was an offer for executing the agreement. If the buyer wished to proceed further with the arrangement of purchase of raw material and buy back of the finished product to the OP then agreement was to be executed. But no agreement had taken place. The statement of the complainant that there was an agreement for supply of raw material and buy back of the finished product by OP does not exist. Hence enforceability of agreement is beyond imagination and allegations of violation of terms of agreement are not sustainable. The complainant himself had approached the OP for providing machine after knowing its features. It may be after thought to take money back from the OP when the complainant found that the machine is not generating desired/envisaged income and put the onus on the OP so that amount paidcould be got refunded. Further it has been observed that consideration price of the machine Rs.59,000/- paid by the complainantvide invoice No.11 dated 10.07.2020 ( Ex.C2) and the machine was delivered to the complainant at his address Brahma Parkash, Siksha Bharti High School, VPO Ranila Teg, Bound Kalan, District Charkhi Dadri, Haryana,127110. But the OPs had charged Rs. 1250/- for delivery of machine which is unjustified and the said amount shouldbe refunded to the complainant. However, no relief is found justified in regard to refund of cost of the machine.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite party to refund the delivery amount of Rs.1,250/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred Fifty only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and also to pay Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as compensation on account of mental pain and agony and Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The above order be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which further interest @9% will be paid by the OP for the delayed period

9.               Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.