Date of Filing : 17.11.2014
Date of Order : 21.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.178/2015
THURSDAY THIS 21ST DAY OF APRIL 2016
M. Easwaran,
S/o. Marimuthu, 4/6,
8th Street, Chandra Sekar Nagar,
Kodugaiyur, Chennai 600 118. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. Chennai Paper Cups,
Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Baburaj,
No.1, Avvaiyar Street,
Ekkatuthangal,
Chennai 600 032.
2. Mr. Baburaj,
Proprietor of Chennai Paper
Cups Company,
No.1, Ayyaiyar Street,
Ekkatuthangal,
Chennai 600 032.
3. The Regional Joint Director,
TNC Thiruvika Estate,
Guindy,
Chennai – 52.
4. The Manager,
State Bank of India,
Tondiarpet,
Chennai 600 081. ..Opposite party
For the Complainant : Party in person.
For the opposite parties 1 to 3 : Exparte.
For the opposite party-4 : M/s. P.D.Audikesavalu & others
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to replace the old defective machine with new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- towards mental agony and damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he was selected for doing business as self employment for his livelihood and was given training by the 3rd opposite party under the scheme New Enterpreneur–Cum-Enterprise Development Scheme (NEED) of Tamilnadu Government and also sanctioned loan through the 4th opposite party bank. Accordingly the complainant has purchased a paper cup making machine from the 1st and 2nd opposite party for Rs.7,35,000/- including vat tax and availing loan of Rs.7,56,000/- (including subsidy amount of Rs.1,83,750 received from DIC, Chennai) from the 4th opposite party which was sanctioned by the government.
2. The complainant further stated that the opposite party-1 is the firm and the opposite party 2 is the proprietor of the 1st opposite party’s firm. The said machine was not properly working from the date of purchase / installation, for which though the complainant was made complaint to the 1st and 2nd opposite party and also by letters and legal notice, the 1st and 2nd opposite party have not complied the repair work, and not replaced the said machine by new one. As such opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service which caused mental agony, hardship, and monitory loss to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for claiming for replacement of the old defective machine by new one and also to pay a sum of Rs.17,00,000/- towards mental agony and damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards the cost of the complaint to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the 1st to 3rd opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version. Hence the 1st to 3rd opposite parties were set exparte on 28.5.2015
Written Version of 4th opposite party is in briefly as follows:
4. The 4th opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complaint as against the fourth opposite party is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and thus it is liable to be dismissed inlimine. The 4th opposite party i.e. State Bank of India, is a body Corporate constituted under the State Bank of India Act 1955 carrying on business of banking with its Corporate Centre at State Bank Bhavan, Mumbai and its branches all over India, including its Tondiarpet Branch in Chennai, where the complainant availed an SME advance of Rs.7,56,000/- on 8.6.2013. As there has been irregularly in repayment of that loan by the complainant, the 4th opposite party propose to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law for its recovery from the complainant. The opposite party submit that the instant case relates to a dispute pertaining to goods purchased by the complainant from the 1st and 2nd opposite party and hence the allegations of the complainant against the first and 2nd opposite parties are not traversed by 4th opposite party. The complainant is not entitled to any relief against the 4th opposite party who is no way connected with that dispute and has been unnecessarily made as a party in this proceedings and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of 4th Opposite party filed and no document was marked on the side of the 4th opposite party.
6. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
7. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the 4th opposite party, the proof affidavits filed by the complainant and 4th opposite party and the documents Ex.A1 to A16 filed on the side of complainant and also considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and 4th opposite party.
8. Complainant was selected for doing business as self employment for his livelihood and was given training by the 3rd opposite party under the scheme New Enterpreneur–Cum-Enterprise Development Scheme (NEED) of Tamilnadu Government and also sanctioned loan through the 4th opposite party bank, accordingly the complainant has purchased a paper cup making machine from the 1st and 2nd opposite party for Rs.7.35,000/- including vat tax as per the invoice Ex.A1, availing loan of Rs.7,56,000- (including subsidy amount of Rs.1,83,750 received from DIC, Chennai) from the 4th opposite party which was sanctioned by the government. The said documents Ex.A2 to Ex.A5, Ex.A11, Ex.A12, Ex.A14, Ex.A15, Ex.A16 are prove the same.
9. The complainant has raised grievance in the complaint that the said paper cup machine purchased from 1st and 2nd opposite party (The opposite party-1 is the firm and the opposite party 2 is the proprietor of the 1st opposite party’s firm), was not properly working from the date of purchase / installation, for which though the complainant was made complaint to the 1st and 2nd opposite party and also by letters Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and legal notice Ex.A9, the 1st and 2nd opposite party have not complied the repair work, and not replaced the said machine by new one. The content of the said letters Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and the legal notice Ex.A9 are prove that the said machine was not properly functioning and the complainant has stated that the said machine was old one by selling the said machine to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2 have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency of service are acceptable. The 2nd opposite party, the proprietor has not even replied for the said letters and legal notice of the complainant. Further the said opposite parties 1 and 2 have remained exparte in this proceedings also. Therefore we are of the considered view that the 2nd opposite party, the proprietor of the 1st opposite firm is liable to replace the said machine purchased by the complainant by new one, since the complainant was suffered loss of business due to the defect of the machine to do business of making paper cups and to sell the same. However the complainant have been availed the loan for the said purchase of the machine and doing business from the 4th opposite party and paying the loan amount by monthly installments with interest as agreed by him with the 4th opposite party, the complainant also faced financial crises and also suffered monetary loss due to the not properly functioning of the said machine and which has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant are also acceptable. Therefore the opposite party-2 the proprietor of the 1st opposite party firm is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
10. However considering the facts and circumstances the 3rd opposite party is of the Government department have selected the complainant to do the said business as self employment by giving training and also sanctioning subsidy amount of Rs.1,83,750/- to the complainant and the 4th opposite party is the bank which has assisted the complainant by granting loan for the remaining amount to the extent of Rs.7,56,000/- for the said business are not considered to be responsible for the unfair trade practice and the deficiency of service committed by the 2nd opposite party in connection with the selling of the said defective machine of paper cup making to the complainant. Further there is no documentary evidence to connect the opposite parties 3 and 4 for the said allegations and grievance made against the 2nd opposite party in the transaction of purchase of machine by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. Therefore we are of the considered view that complainant is not entitled for any relief as against the opposite parties 3 and 4 and they are considered to be unnecessary parties to this complaint.
11. Therefore as discussed above and facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the opposite party-2 is the proprietor of the 1st opposite party firm is liable to replace the complaint mentioned paper cup making machine purchased under Ex.A1 by new one with necessary formalities attached therewith, such as warranty, service guarantee etc., and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant. This complaint against opposite parties 3 and 4 is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result this complaint is partly allowed. The 2nd opposite party who is the proprietor firm of the 1st opposite party is directed to replace the complaint mentioned paper cup making machine purchased under Ex.A1 by new one with necessary accessories, such as necessary warranty, service guarantee etc., and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the said compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment and in addition the 2nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- per month for the period of delay in delivering and replacing the new machine to the complainant. This complaint against the opposite parties 3 and 4 are dismissed.
Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 20th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 4.10.2013 - Copy of Invoice.
Ex.A2- 4.10.2013 - Copy of receipt of Chennai paper cups.
Ex.A3- 24.10.2015 - Copy of receipt of Chennai paper cups.
Ex.A4- - - Copy of Disbursement intimation letter sent by 4th opposite
party to 3rd opposite party under Need Scheme.
Ex.A5- 8.6.2013 - Copy of Sanction letter sent by 4th opposite party to
Complainant.
Ex.A6- 20.1.2014 - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 3rd opposite party.
Ex.A7- 2.4.2014 - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
along return cover.
Ex.A8- 10.4.2014 - Copy of letter sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party
along return cover.
Ex.A9- 13.6.2014 - Copy of legal notice sent to 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A10- 20.6.2014 - Copy of legal notice sent to 4th opposite party.
Ex.A11- 18.2.2014 - Copy of Triparte agreement entered between complainant
3rd and 4th opposite party.
Ex.A12- 27.8.2014 - Copy of proceedings of 3rd opposite party for grant of
Subsidy under NEEDS scheme.
Ex.A13- -3.10.2014- Copy of complaint along with CSR copy for the complaint
preferred before police.
Ex.A14- 21.12.2012- Copy of certificate issued by MSME Development Institute.
Ex.A15- - - Copy of Certificate awarded under Needs scheme for
completion of Entrepreneurship Development Programme
Training.
Ex.A16- 17.9.2013 - Copy of EB Card (3 phase)
Opposite parties’ Exhibits:- .. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
