Haryana

Karnal

CC/201/2022

Goodrich Cereals - Complainant(s)

Versus

Economode Food Equipment (India) Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Radhe Shyam Sharma

20 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 201 of 2022

                                                        Date of instt.05.04.2022

                                                        Date of Decision:20.04.2023

 

Goodrich Cereals, village Nagla Megha, Meerut Road, Karnal through its partner Narinder Kumar.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Economode food Equipment(India) Pvt. Ltd., Kothari Warehouse no.3, Unit no.M-27, Acre, Chitlasar Manpada Thane(W), Maharashtra-400607, through its Director.

 

2.     Shri Arun Dadda, Managing Director, Economode Fod Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kothari warehouse no.3, Unit no.M-27, Acre Chitlasar Mandpada Thane(W), Maharashtra-400607.

 

3.     Shri Mannu Aggarwal, Director, Economode Food Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. Kothari Warehouse no.3, Unit no.M-27, Acre, Chitlasar Manpada Thane (W), Maharashtra-400607.

 

4.     Shri Rishi Sahu, Marketing Head, Economode Food Equipment (India) Pvt. Ltd. Kothari Warehouse no.3, Unit no.M-27, Acre, Chitlasar Manpada Thane (W), Maharashtra-400607.

 

                                                                 …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Radhey Shyam, counsel for the complainant.

                    Opposite parties exparte.

 

                    (Dr. rekha Chaudhay, member)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant has filed the present complaint  through its authorized person Narinder Kumar, who is one of the partners of the abovesaid firm and he is well conversant with the facts of the present complaint and is having day to day knowledge of the business of the complainant. Complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing of all types snacks and other food product and the complainant is renowned and reputed company in the country and is having a good command over the food products i.e. snacks etc. Complainant was in need of one semi automatic potato chips fryer machine for manufacturing of snacks. On 28.11.2017, the representative of OPs approached the complainant and disclosed that OPs are best manufacturer of “potato chips” and “Lachha” machine and the machine manufactured by them is of good quality and is free of any defect. The OPs sent quotation of the above machine to the complainant and the OPs quoted the price of the machine to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- which includes transportation installation and other expenses, but the deal was finalized for Rs.53,10,000/- as per purchase order no.GC/FX17-18/PO-1157 dated 28.11.2017. The complainant company purchased the abovesaid machine vide invoice no.212 dated 06.03.2018 had transferred Rs.44,84,000/- in the account of the OPs and the complainant assured the OPs that the balance amount would be paid at the time of installation and commissioning of machine at the premises of the complainant. As per the purchase order, the said machine bear the warranty of one year from the date of installation and it was also settled that all the disputes will be settled at Karnal. In the month of March, 2018, the OPs installed the abovesaid machine at the premises of the complainant. When the performance of the machine was checked, the same was not found to be satisfaction of the complainant, but even when complainant company transferred the balance amount of Rs.1,12,587/- and in this way complainant paid total Rs.45,96,587/-. The complainant company raised objection to the non-performance of the machine upto the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant also sent e-mails to the OPs that the machine is not working properly and informed the OPs that the machine is defective from the very beginning. The representative of the company also agreed with the defect I n the machine and assured that either the machine will be set right or they will replace the machines. On 27.11.2018, the Managing Director of the OPs namely Arun Dadda visited the premises of the complainant company and inspection the performance and working of the machines, but he also admitted that there is a major defect in the machines. A meeting was held between the complainant company and the Managing Director of OPs and in this regard, a written documents was prepared and the Managing Director of OPs has under taken to the effect that:

a)     our company shall change slicer at your factory installed in  the machine in question.

b)     our company shall make necessary changes and installation in the machine in question whereby feeding shall be automized with hoppr and singulator

c)     our company shall change centrifuge at your factory installed in the machine in question and install a new one to match the machine.

d)     our company shall replace the present heat exchanger installed at the machine with thermic heat exchanger provided addressee installs theremic fluid boiler of 10 lakh KCL

e)     Mr. Arun Dadda undertakes that at the time of installation he shall be personally present at the time of installation.

f)      company shall bear the expenses for the inspection of the machine by FTI Food Tech Pvt. Limited after its installation ad the scope of inspection of the inspecting company shall confine itself to check whether the production capacity and quality of furnished machine.

g)     it is clarified that our company undertakes to make all necessary changes to capacitate the capacity and quality of machine in question.

h)     company further undertakes that company shall bring the machine in proper working condition within 20-30 days from today and adhere to all the averments made in the instant.

After some time, the complainant contacted the OPs through emails dated 08.02.2020 and requested them to comply with the terms and conditions (a) to (h), either to set right the machine or to replace the machines, otherwise to refund the amount, but the OPs postponed the matter on one pretext or the other and in the year 2020, OPs took an excuse that due to spread of corona virus, they cannot come to the premises of complainant and further assured the complainant as and when the lockdown is lifted, they would come to the premises of the complainant and would replace the machines or refund the amount. The complainant informed the OPs that he has suffered a huge loss of business due to non-functioning/performance of the machines supplied and installed by the OPs.  Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs so many times through emails to set right the machine or to replace the machines, otherwise to refund the amount, but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. On 08.06.2018, complainant also got tested the abovesaid machines from FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Indore. The qualified engineers of FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. visited the premises of complainant and checked the working of the machines and then come to the conclusion that machines’ capacities and efficiencies cannot give the assumed desirable out as promised by the OPs. It is further averred that after the lifting of lockdown, complainant again contacted the OPs on various occasions and requested them to replace the machine or to refund the amount, but the OPs have lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs did not appear despite service and opted to the proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 31.5.2022 and 31.08.2022 respectively of the Commission.

3.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Narinder Kumar Partner Ex.CW1/A, authority letter dated 28.03.2022 Ex.C1, copy of partnership deed Ex.C2, copy of meeting of November, 2018 Ex.C3, copy of emails Ex.C4, copy of list of extra demand Ex.C5, copy of invoice Ex.C6, copy of report of consultant Ex.C7, copy of report of visitation Ex.C8, copy of letter dated 05.06.2018 Ex.C9, copy of call detail Ex.C10, copy of subsequent mails Ex.C11, copy of notice dated 12.12.2018 Ex.C12, copy of packing list Ex.C13, copy of purchase order Ex.C14, copy of GST tax invoice Ex.C15 and closed the evidence on 06.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant  purchased the machine in question from OPs and paid Rs.45,96,587/- to the OPs. In the month of March, 2018, the OPs installed the machine. The performance of the machine was not satisfactory. Complainant made so many complaints to the OPs. On 27.11.2018, the Managing Director of the OPs visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the performance and working of the machines and pointed out that there is a major defect in the machines. On 08.06.2018, complainant also got tested the abovesaid machines from FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Indore. The qualified engineers of FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. visited the premises of complainant and checked the working of the machines and then come to the conclusion that machines’ capacities and efficiencies cannot give the assumed desirable out as promised by the OPs. Thus, the machine supplied by the OPs having a manufacturing defect and lastly prayed for refund the paid amount, compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

7.             The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant. Complainant proved his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence.  It is proved on the record that complainant had purchased the unit in question, vide tax invoice Ex.C6 for the Rs.44,84,000/-. It is also proved on record that complainant also paid Rs.94,400/- to the OPs, vide tax invoice Ex.C15.

8.             It is also proved on record from the copy of meeting Ex.C3 dated 27.11.2018 that the Managing Director of the OPs namely Arun Dadda had visited the premises of the complainant company and inspected the performance and working of the machines and found there is a major defect in the machines.

9.             It is also proved on the record from the email Ex.C5 dated 26.12.2018, email Ex.C8 dated 13.06.2018, email Ex.C9 dated 05.06.2018, complainant made complaints with regard to defect in the machine.

10.           It is also proved on the record from the report Ex.C7 dated 08.06.2018, the complainant got tested the  unit in question from FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. Indore. The engineers of FTI Food Tech. Pvt. Ltd. visited the premises of complainant and checked the working of the machines and come to the conclusion that machines’ capacities and efficiencies cannot give the assumed desirable out as promised by the OPs.

11.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Therefore, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is well proved on record that the unit in question is having manufacturing defect. Hence, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           It is proved on record, complainant has paid Rs.45,96,587/- to the OPs. Hence, complainant is entitled for the said amount alongwith compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.45,96,587/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.11,000/- for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear if the awarded amount is not paid within stipulated period then this amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of announcement of the order till its realization. However, complainant is also directed to handover the unit in question alongwith accessories to the OPs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:11.04.2023     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)               (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

         Member                           Member