BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 24 of 2012
1. Musstt. Husnara Parbin Barlaskar , ………………………………… Complainant 1.
2. Md. Tabarak Ali Laskar ……………………………………………… Complainant 2.
3. Md. Iquebal Ahmed Barlaskar ………………………………………. Complainant 3.
4. Md. Ainul Haque Barlaskar ………………………………………….. Complainant 4.
5. Md. Abadur Rahman Barbhuiya ……………………………………. Complainant 5.
-V/S-
1. Cones India Engineering Works,183/2C2,
Thuran Fiber Compound, Rangasamudhram,
Suleeswaranpatti (P.O), Pollachi-642006. O.P No.1.
2. Coir Board (Represented by the Officer-In-Charge),
Sub-Regional Office, Coir Board,
Govt. of India, ASIDC Ltd. Complex, Bamunimaidan, Guwahati-21 O.P No.2.
3. Barak Vision (NGO) Represented by its Directior,
Md. G.M. Choudhury,
Vill & P.O- Hasanpur, Dist. Karimganj-788806. O.P No.3.
4. Canara Bank , Silchar Branch (Represented by its Manager)
Shobhana Super Market, 1st Floor,
Rangirkhari, N.S. Avenue, Silchar-788005. Dist- Cachar O.P No.4.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Sri A. Biswas Advocate for the Complainants.
Sri Biplob Deb, Advocate for the O.P. No.1
Sri Irshad Ahmed, Advocate for O.P.No.2
Sri Mehboob Hussain Mazumder for O.P.No.3
Sri Sibdas Dutta, Advocate for O.P. No.4
Date of Evidence……………………….. 29-01-2013, 26-03-2013, 18-04-2013
Date of written argument……………… 07-07-2015, 14-10-2015, 11-05 2017
Date of oral argument…………………. 23-10-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 05-12-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- Musstt. Husnara Parbin Barlaskar and 4 (Four) others brought the complaint under the provision of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against Cones India Engineering Works,183/262 Pollachi and 3 (three) others for award of refund of cost of Coir Machine and cost of Factory Shed and compensation for harassment, disservice, mental agony for failure to run coir units set up under REMOT Scheme of Coir Board and also cost of the proceedings.
- Brief facts:-
The complainants herein above successfully completed 12 days training programme for running Coir Industry under O.P No. 3. Thereafter, at the instance and recommendation of O.P No.2 and O.P No.3 they applied for Bank loan with 40% subsidy per unit. Accordingly, O.P No.4 the Canara Bank, Silchar Branch sanctioned Rs.2,00,000/- per unit for each application which includes Rs.1,20,000/- as cost of Coir Machine and remaining Rs.80,000/- for construction of Factory Shed of each unit. Thus, in course of process Factory Shed for each unit as per each applicant’s choice of place constructed on released of the amount from Bank. The Bank also released price of Machines as per quotation. The Machine erected at each unit by the Mechanic of the O.P No.1 as the said O.P No.1 supplied the Machine. But not a single Machine able to run to start production. For which each applicant made several correspondence with allegation that the quality of Electric Motor Supplied is very poor to such extent that it fails to rotate even unloaded rope making units, a lot of damaged and shortage parts of already dispatched Coir Machine were not supplied, the Machine did not install properly etc.
- Notice issued to the O.Ps. They have submitted the W/S separately. The O.P No.2 and 3 in their W/S stated inter-alia that the complainants are not consumer under them, for which no relief can be granted against them. Similarly, the O.P No.4 in its W/S stated inter-alia that there is no disservice on its part, hence, no cause of action has arisen against the O.P No.4. However, the O.P No.1 admittedly the supplier of the Coir Machines, denied all the allegations. The said O.P stated inter-alia in the W/S that successfully installed the respective Machines in the year of 2010 in presence of the official of O.P No.2, the representative of O.P No.3 and O.P No.4, which has been duly confirmed by them and warrantee period of one year is already elapsed much earlier. Thus, question of negligence and disservice on the part of O.P No.1 does not arise.
- During hearing, the complainants side examined Musstt. Husnara Parbin Barlaskar and exhibited as many as 33 (thirty three) documents. The O.P No.1 examined Mr. K. Sugunakumar to establish the plea that very superior quality of Machines supplied and technical staff/team repeatedly attended the Machines 4/5 times and installation and test drive of Machines have been done in presence of the official O.P No.2, 3 and 4. The O.P No.2 also submitted statement of V. Sudheer on affidavit. The O.P No.3 examined Gulam Mahammad Choudhury on oath and O.P No.4 examined the Branch Manager on oath to support the plea taken in the W/S and also exhibited some documents to establish the facts regarding sanction of loan etc.
- At the ends of evidence, the complainants submitted written argument. The O.P No.2, 3 and 4 also submitted their written argument but O.P No.1 did neither submit written argument nor orally argue the case. However, we have heard oral argument of complainants, O.P No.3 and 4. The O.P No.1 and 2 did not argue the case orally but we heard oral argument of the Complainant.
- In this case, it is admitted fact in view of Complainants’ application, W/S and evidence on record that the O.P No. 3 is the NGO who gave 12 days training to each complainant in respect of production of Coir rope, as per the Scheme lunched by the O.P No.2. The O.P No.4 is the financer who sanctioned loan as per the Scheme and made payment of cost of Machine and cost of construction of Factory Shed of each unit respectively. The O.P No.2 is the Coir Board, which is an Organization of Govt. of India. The said O.P No.2 lunched the Scheme for setting up Coir units with 40% subsidy. However, it is the O.P No.1 who supplied the Coir Machine for each unit on receiving price of each Machine.
- However, from careful perusal of evidence on record that the Coir Machine of each units are not running at all to start production. The complainants by adducing evidence tried to establish the allegation that motor of each Coir Machine was very poor to such extent that it failed to rotate even unloaded rope making unit and some parts of Machines were damaged etc. The said plea has been supported in view of letter addressed to office-in-charge of Sub Regional Office of Coir Board i.e, O.P No.2 vide Ext. 14. 15 and 16.
- The plea of O.P.No.1 as below:-
“That the answering O.P. supplied the superior quality of machines which the Complainant doesn’t utilize properly due to lack of experience, Law Voltage, Shortage of raw material and non-interest and so on.”
- However, there is no conclusive proof of the plea of both the side. So, at this stage from the available evidence on record, it is not able to conclude as whether the area where Machine is installed is not available required level of voltage or whether the motor of the Machine is poor to take load to run. Nevertheless, from the evidence on record, it is crystal clear that Machine installed in each units is unable to run to start production due to plea of the O.P.No.1 of Low Voltage of power supply.
- If power is low in that area than it is the duty of the O.P No.1 to instruct the complainant to make a temporary arrangement by hiring a generator/stabilizer to supply requisite power to run the Machine for the sake of satisfying the complainant that the Machine is alright, but no such attempt had made by the O.P. That is why, with the un-proved fact of low power as alleged the O.P No.1, the supplier cannot be absolved from the responsibility to run the Machine.
- Hence, in our considered view due to deficiency of service of the O.P No.1 the Machine installed to each unit are not running to start production. So, the O.P No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant both for monetary loss as well as mental agony.
- However, in this case we do not find any relevant fact to establish consumer and service provider relation between complainant and O.P No.2 and 3, in respect of purchasing the Coir Machine, installation of the Machine and running the Machine for production.
- Hence, no relief is entitled by the complainant from the O.P No.2 and 3. The O.P NO.4 is Banker. The said O.P sanctioned loan as per the Scheme and extended all required service. As such there is no deficiency of service toward complainant. So the complainants are not entitled any relief from O.P No.4.
- With the above and considering all aspect, the O.P No.1 is asked to take back all the Machine if unable to cause running the machine with all means to start production within 45 days from today and pay a lamp-sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for each units to the Complainant, which include cost of proceeding and compensation for mental agony. In the event of taking back the Machine of each unit the O.P No.1 is to refund the price of each Machine with prevailing rate of interest asked for by the O.P No.4 with effect from the date of receiving the price by the O.P No.1 in earlier occasion directly the O.P.No.4.
- Therefore, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 5th day of December, 2017.
