Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/163/2012

J.Kannagi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Crystal Digital Solution & another - Opp.Party(s)

G.Nanmaran

08 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                             BEFORE        Thiru. A.K.ANNAMALAI            PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                                       Tmt. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                    MEMBER

 

F.A.NO. 163/2012

(Against order in C.C. No.77/2007

DCDRF, Chennai(South) Dated 31.1.2012)

 

DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2015

Mrs.J.Kannagi

W/o S.Jeevan

No.16, Old No.27, Ethirajulu street

Pattalam, Choolai

Chennai 600 012                                                                                  ..Appellant/Complainant

                                                                     Vs

1. Crystal Digital Solutions

Shop No.2, D.No.28-6-186

First Floor, Srihari Complex

Prakasam Road, Governerpet

Vijayawada 520 002

 

2. Crystal Digital Solutions

Old No.3A, New No.75

Giriappa Road, T.Nagar

Chennai 600 017                                                                               ..Respondents/opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant     : M/s G.Nanmaran

For the Respondents/opp.parties             : Served called absent

The complainant is the appellant.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, the Appellant/complainant filed this appeal praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai(South)  in CC.No. 77/2007 dated 31.1.2012.

         This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 30.6.2015 upon hearing the arguments on both side, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, Chennai(South), this commission made the following order.

THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.        The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.

2.        The complainant along with her husband visited an Industrial Trade Fair conducted at Chennai during the 1st week of February 2010 and ordered for the supply of machine bearing model No 3308 for the concessional price of Rs.7,80,000/-, on the promise of 1st opposite party that they have to pay one 20% of the amount and the balance amount of 80% bank loan would be arranged and in June 2006, the machine was supplied with the different model T.No.3312 without manual book and machine had developed snag within 10 days and the 1st opposite party demanded the balance amount immediately to rectify the defect. The Appellant paid the balance amount by way of four cheques for Rs.4,20,000/- besides  the cash of Rs.25,000/-. The above said cheques has not been encashed by the 1st opposite party and the machine was not repaired inspite of several communications made or replaced the entire machine. Hence the consumer complaint came to be filed claiming the reliefs.

3.       Before the District Forum, the 2nd opposite party did not appeared, he was set exparte.

4.       The 1st opposite party denied the allegations stating that they are not having any branch at Chennai and to invoke the jurisdiction of Chennai, case has been filed by making the 2nd opposite party as if having branch at Chennai. The actual cost of the machine was only Rs.7,80,000/- and no where it is mentioned as Rs.10,75,000/- offering the concessional rate, one Sathya Narayana and Basker of M/s Aristo Publicity have requested to supply the machine to the complainant’s company also for which the opposite party agreed for supply of machine for Rs.7,50,000/-  by giving concession for Rs.30,000/- for the original price and the model No. 3312 had been delivered to the premises of M/s Jeevan Advertisements and not to the complainant. For which the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- cash had been paid by the company and issued cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- as  advance which was sent for collection was bounced and there after the Demand Draft was sent. After that the complainant issued five cheques for which two cheques were dishonored for which the criminal action was negotiated for recovery of the balance also the civil suit was filed in O.S.339/2007 against M/s Jeevan Advertisements. Hence there is no deficiency of service on their part.

5.         Based on both side materials, after an enquiry  the District Forum by observing that the complainant had failed to prove the payments for the purchase and the opposite parties are not having any unfair trade practice and thereby the dismissed the complaint.

6.         Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant filed this appeal contending that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without considering Ex.A.2 in which one year warranty was given and the Civil Suit filed by the opposite parties was dismissed at Vijayawada in which the Advocate Commissioner Report filed was wrongly relied upon.

7.           In this Appeal, the Respondents even after service of notice did not appeared before this Commission and was remained absent. Hence after hearing the arguments of appellant and upon perused the materials, the order being passed on merits.

8.          It is the admitted case of both sides, that the complainant has ordered for supply of printing machine to the opposite parties during the Exhibition at Chennai and on the promise of payment of Rs.7,50,000/-, the machine was supplied eventhough the complainant alleged it was ordered for model No. S3308 but supplied only with the model S 3312 and subsequently the complainant alleged that there are defects in the machine and inspite of the repeated requests, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and thereby the consumer complaint came to be filed. Whereas the 2nd opposite party contended though they supplied the machine for Rs.7,50,000/-, the complainant having pai Rs.1,00,000/- as advance money and issued five cheques for the amount of Rs.4,20,000/- and another Rs.25,000/-, the two cheques were bounced. They have initiated the criminal action under Negotiable Instruments Act and also filed a civil suit for recovery of balance money for the  supply of machine and for itself, the 2nd opposite party relied upon the documents under Ex.B.2 and Ex.B.4 along with return memos under Ex.B.3 and B.5 from the bank and also the legal notice was issued for claiming the balance amount under Ex.B.6 and the complaint copy filed before the Criminal Court under Ex.B.7 and the copy of the plaint for civil suit under Ex.B.8 along with Advocate Commissioner’s report who was appointed in civil suit in Ex.B.9 and thereby contended there was no deficiency in service on their part. Even though, the District Forum relied upon Ex.B.9 , by wrongly observed that the machines were functioning. On perusal of Ex.B.9 would reveal that after servicing the notice to the Respondent’s clerk removed the flex materials from the machine and the Electronic Engineer switched the machine, it indicates “ready” in machine display Unit.  When the Electronic  Engineer while installing  the flex material on the  machines, the Respondent Jeevan objected the same and informed  that without loading the flex, the working condition of the printing of the  machine is not possible to know the same. From these details,  it is clear that the machine was in  working condition and when it was tried to expose the complainant’s husband objected for the same and thereby the Advocate Commissioner returned from the place without note down the working condition of the machine as the complainant not co-operated. This would reveal that the complainant has not come forward with clean hands in filing the complaint.

9.       Further as per the criminal case details and civil suit details under Ex.B.7 & B.8 for the same cause of action against the complainant, the 1st opposite party filed the same for recovery of money for the machine supplied and eventhough the complainant contended that the civil suit was dismissed. On perusal of the order of the civil suit subsequent to the complaint, it is found as since the 1st opposite party’s company was not having Registration of company certificate at the time of filing a suit and it was availed subsequently and on that technical ground, the suit was dismissed. In those circumstances, when the complainant had not paid the entire payment towards purchase of machine and also those machine was supplied in the name of M/s Jeevan Advertisements instead of filing the case in the name of the company, the complainant in her individual capacity filed this complaint also could not get any relief for her and thereby the order passed by the District Forum in this regard by dismissing the complaint needs no interference by way of appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed as no merits and accordingly,

 

       In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC 77/2007 dated 31.1.2012.

      No order as to costs in the appeal.    

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                                      A.K.ANNAMALAI 

  MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.