DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
P U R U L I A
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 43 OF 2022
Present
- Sri Rabindra Nath Malik, Hon’ble President.
- Sri Rituraj Dey, Hon’ble Member.
- Smt. Mala Basu(Chakravorty), Hon’ble Member.
Date of filing: 12nd August 2022
Date of Order: 31st March 2023
Petitioner Opposite Party (s)
Imran Ansary, S/O- Kamisan Ansary 1) Chiranjit Bag Prop. of Maa
R/O, Vill- Hadla, PO- Chatarmahal, Enterprise, Office at Barbaria, Barasat
PS- Raghunathpur, Dist.- Purulia, Kolkata- 700 126.
Pin. 723 152 .
For the Complainant : Smt M. Mukherjee, Advocate.
For the O.Ps : None Appear.
Smt. Mala Basu(Chakravorty), Hon’ble Member.
This is a case under section 35 of consumer protection Act, 2019.
This case arose on the basis of a petition of complainant filed by Imran Ansary son of Kamisan Ansary of Village- Hadla, P.O- Chatarmahal, P.S- Raghunathpur, District- Purulia, Pin Code- 723152 herein after referred as complainant against Chiranjit Bag, Proprietor of Maa Enterprise having its office at Barbaria, Barasat, at Kolkata- 700126 herein after referred as the opposite party (OP).
Fact of the case in brief that the complainant being an unemployed youth having no means to livelihood and for self employment decided to purchase paper cup manufacturing machine and purchased a second hand paper cup machine from the opposite party (OP) herein by paying consideration money of Rs. 3,77,000/- (Rupees Three lakh seventy seven thousand only) through NEFT from Bandhan Bank on 18.04.2022. Before purchasing the said machine the OP had provided a copy of specification details of the said machine which states that the machine will produce 75 cups per minute and also gave oral warranty of 6 (Six) months for the said machine. The complainant started operating the said machine to produce paper cups but it never made 75 cups per minute and within
Contd…p/2
Dictated & corrected by
Page-2
six days after purchase the machine has stopped functioning. The said machine only produced 45 cups per minute and subsequently it stopped operation on 25.04.2022.The complainant requested several times the OP to either repair or replace the machine but op refused it. Finding no other alternative the complainant sent a legal notice through his Ld. Lawyer to the OP on 04.06.2022.
In response to the said notice op sent a legal notice through his Ld. Lawyer to the complainant where he admitted that the complainant purchased a second hand (old) paper made tea cup manufacturing machine for consideration of Rs. 3,70,000/- (Rupees Three lakh seventy thousand) only instead of Rs. 3,77,000/- (Rupees Three lakh Seventy seven thousand) only. He also stated there that he never assured that the said machine will produce 75 cups per minute, no oral warranty of 6 months was given and did not promised that machine will be replaced in case of failure of operation within 6 months warranty period. Any way if the machine requires any repair for technical issue OP will provide help for operating the machine but at the cost of the complainant. Finding no other way the complainant lodged a written complaint before Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practices, Purulia Region and date was fixed for mediation on 21.07.2022 but none appears on behalf of the OP. Hence OP had adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP which caused harassment and mental pain to the complainant. The complainant by filing this complaint case before this Commission prayed for the relief in the form of direction to the OP to either repair the said machine or replace the same or refund the purchase price of the machine Rs. 3,77,000/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 25/04/2022 to till payment of the amount to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental pain.
After filing this complaint case summons was issued upon OP but after service of summons OP did not take any steps and filed written version. It appears from the conduct of the OP that he is unwilling to contest the case. Hence, the case was heard ex-parte against OP on the basis of the complaint and written notes of argument filed by the complainant.
On scrutiny of the record, it appears that the complainant in order to bring home his case produced the following documents.
- Photocopy of Approval slip dated 19.04.202 of Maa Enterprise in the name of complainant (Annexure - 1).
- Photocopy of Bank acknowledgement slip dated 18.04.2022 (Annexure - 2).
- Photocopy of specification details of High speed paper cup machine of Maa Enterprise (Annexure - 3).
- Photocopy of Advocate Letter of the complainant dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure - 4).
- Photocopy of Legal notice of OP through Ld. Advocate (Annexure - 5).
-
Dictated & corrected by
Page-3
Points for consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer under the provision of C. P. Act, 2019?
- Has the Commission any jurisdiction to try this case?
- Has there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Is there any unfair trade practice by the OP as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1
On perusal of the case record, it reveals to us that the complainant had purchased a second hand paper cup manufacturing machine from the OP by paying consideration money of Rs. 3,77,000/- (Rupees three lacs seventy-seven thousand) only. We have perused the bank statement of Bandhan Bank in the name of complainant, Bank acknowledgement slip (Annexure -2) dated 18/04/2022 and Approval Slip (Annexure - 1) dated 19/04/2022 issued by OP that payment for paper cup machine was Rs. 3,77,000 (Rupees three lacs seventy-seven thousand) only. Complainant is the purchaser and OP is the seller. The relationship between complainant and OP is well established as buyer and seller. Therefore, complainant is a consumer under Section 2(7)(i) of C.P. Act 2019. Hence, this point is decided in favour of the complainant.
Point No. 2
The complainant instituted this complaint case is very much within the territorial jurisdiction of Purulia and the relief claimed is well within the pecuniary limit of this Commission. Hence, this Commission has the jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No. 3,4 & 5
All the three points are taken up together for the convenience of discussion. It appears that three points are related with each other. It reveals from case record that the complainant had purchased a secondhand paper cup manufacturing machine from the OP against consideration money of Rs. 3,77,000 (Rupees three lacs seventy seven thousand) only. Complainant made payment through NEFT from his Bandhan Bank Account. Before purchasing the said machine OP provided him a specification details (Annexure - 3). Complainant submitted that OP gave oral warranty of 6(six) months for the said machine. The machine produced only 45 cups per minute only and stopped functioning after 6 days of its purchase. The complainant requested several times to repair or replace the machine but OP refused it. Complainant issued legal notice through his Ld. Advocate to be the OP dated 04.06.2022 (Annexure - 4) claiming his demands. In response the OP sent a legal notice through
Contd…p/4
Dictated & corrected by
Page-4
his Ld. Advocate (Annexure - 5) and admitted that machine was sold for Rs. 3,70,000/- instead of Rs. 3,77,000/- and denied all his claims and grievances. Op clearly stated that the complainant checked the condition and smoothness of the machinery at the time of purchase and after full satisfaction regarding the same he had purchased the said machinery. OP also declared that if any problem arises in operating the machine and requires any repairing to the said machine he would provide help in this regard but at the cost of the complainant.
Having heard the argument advanced by the complainant and considering the materials on record, we are of the opinion that the second hand paper cup machine was purchased by the complainant for Rs. 3,77,000 (Rupees three lacs seventy seven thousand) only. It reveals from Annexure – 3 i.e. specification details is for high speed paper cup manufacturing new machine. High speed new paper cup machine can produce 75 cups per minute. This specification is not for second hand paper cup machine. There is no warranty card provided by the OP to replace or refund the purchase price of the second hand machine in case of failure of operation. The complainant has failed to bring on record any evidence to substantiate that OP had refused to provide necessary service to the complainant and also adopted unfair trade practice. The OP was willing to provide repairing service for any technical issue or problem regarding operation of the machine.
Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case as made out in the complaint, we are constrained to hold that there is no specific cause of action against OP. The complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service against the OP. The complainant is not entitled to get any decree for deficiency in service on the part of the OP as well as harassment and mental pain to the complainant as alleged. For the sake of smooth function in operating the said machine and to continue his business as the complainant purchased the said machine for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The OP is directed to repair the said machine so that it can function smoothly as per full satisfaction of the complainant. Repair cost of the machine will be borne by both the parties in equal shares.
Hence,
ORDERED
that this complaint case is decreed in part. The opposite party is directed to repair the said second hand paper cup manufacturing machine within one month from the date of this order with full satisfaction of the complainant. Repair cost of the machine will be borne by both the parties in equal share i.e. 50% each.
Contd…p/5
Dictated & corrected by
Page-5
If the opposite party fails to comply the order of this Commission, complainant is at liberty by putting this order into execution through this Commission.
Let a copy of the order to be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Dictated & corrected by
