Orissa

Cuttak

CC/357/2023

Smt Minati Nanda - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager,Das cnc Technology - Opp.Party(s)

26 Jul 2024

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK.

C.C.No.357/2023

 

Smt. Minati Nanda,

Proprietor of M/s. Vaibhav Timber and Furniture,

W/o: Aranaya Kumar Nanda,

At:Laxminarayanpur,P.O:Mahajanpur,

P.S:Jagatpur,Dist:Cuttack,Pin-754200..                   ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       The General Manager,

Das cnc Technology,

Kolkata Krshnanagar,Odisha,

Pin-741101.

 

2.       The Branch Manager,

Das cnc Technology,

                 Kalidaspur,Balia,Januganj,

                Saraswatipur,Balasore,Odisha,

​                Pin-756019

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    20.10.2023

Date of Order:  26.07.2024

 

For the complainant:               Self.

For the O.Ps                :             None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.                                                                 

             Case of the complainant in short is that for self-employment and in order to earn her livelihood she started wood product business/furniture business in the name and style M/s Vaibhav Timber and Furniture at Laxminarayanpur the district of Cuttack.  The further case of the complainant is that she required some machineries for her business and for the said purpose she contacted the O.Ps to get the said product i.e. CNC Router(DCT 1525 5D A), 4^th Axis.  The O.Ps sent the quotation of the said product to the complainant.  The complainant as per the said quotation paid the entire amount of Rs.8,30,000/- to the O.P no.1 on 2.8.2023.  Subsequent to the payment made by the complainant, the O.Ps sent the machineries to the complainant on 12.8.2023 alongwith packing list of memo and bill but the O.Ps had not sent stabilizer as per the quotation.  The technical person of the O.Ps installed the machineries in the premises of the complainant on 18.8.2023. Thereafter the O.Ps sent their technical person to impart training of operation and functioning of the said machineries on 7.9.2023.  The said technical person operated the machine but the 2nd machine i.e. 4^th Axis Rotary did not function properly.  It is stated by the complainant that CNC Router machineries as purchased by the complainant consists of two parts such as machine DCT 1525 DA and 4^th Axis Rotary which are interlinked with each other.  At the time of operation of the machineries, the second machine i.e. 4^th Axis Rotary did not function properly but the technical person of the O.Ps without removing the said defect returned back on 8.9.2023 with the assurance that he would send programming of the said machine at a later date but the said technical person did not send any programming for functioning of 4^th Axis Rotary machine.  The complainant time and again requested to the said technical person as well as to the O.Ps for rectification of the defects in the second machine i.e. 4^th Axis Rotary.  But the O.Ps did not take any steps for removing the defect in the machine.  As both the machines are interlinked even if one machine was functioning that is useless due to non-functioning of the other machine.  It is also stated by the complainant that by availing loan she had purchased the said machineries and as the O.Ps did not remove the defect in the said machineries,  she sustained loss.  Hence it is prayed by the complainant for refund of Rs.8,30,000/- the cost of the said machine as well as Rs.1,75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment so also Rs.1,50,000/ towards cost of her litigation.

          In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed copies of certain documents.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, both the O.Ps have been set exparate vide order dt.30.1.2024.

3.           The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, for the sake of convenience, point no.ii is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant has filed money receipt which reveals that she had paid Rs.8,30,000/- to the O.P no.1 on 2.8.2023 for purchasing machinery from the O.Ps towards the quotation of the O.Ps, where the cost component was shown as Rs.8,30,000/-.  The quotation reveals that three machineries are to be provided by the O.Ps to the complainant such as (1) Machine,(2) 4^th Axis Rotary & (3) Stabilizer.  The cost of the machine was Rs.7,05,000/-, the cost of 4^th Axis Rotary machine was Rs.1,10,000/- and the cost of stabilizer was Rs.15,000/-.  The O.Ps sent the said machineries to the complainant on 12.8.2023.  The O.Ps alongwith the machineries had sent bill as well as packing list memo.  The O.Ps had assured as per the quotation  to provide stabilizer but they have not provided the same to the complainant.  It is stated by the complainant that the technical person of O.Ps was deputed on 7.9.2023 to impart training of operation and functional of the machineries which was earlier installed by the O.Ps in the premises of the complainant on 18.8.2023.  But the said technical person could not make functional the machinery, 4^th Axis Rotary properly and he left without rectifying the defect with the assurance to the complainant to send programming of the said machinery for smooth functioning. But the said technical person did not send the programming even after repeated requests made by the complainant over phone.  Thereafter, the complainant stated to have contacted the O.Ps number of times over phone.   But the O.Ps did not take any steps rectifying the defects of the machinery.  Finally, the complainant had sent a letter on 18.9.23 to the O.P no.1 through e.mail to take back the 4^th Axis Rotary machine and refund the cost of the machine.  The O.Ps as usual neither take any steps for removing the defect of the machinery nor refunded the cost of the machine.  The O.Ps also neither took back the machine nor refunded the cost.    The quotation reveals that there is warranty of 12 months from the date of installation of the machine but here in this case during initial operation of the machine by the technical person of O.Ps, the machineries found to be defective.    The complainant subsequently came to know that both the machineries i.e. main machine and 4^th Axis Rotary are interlinked.  Hence, the complainant prayed for refund of total cost of the machines.  The O.Ps have neither appeared nor have filed their written version and they have been set exparte.  In a pertinent decision reported in 2018(I) CPR 314(NC) in the case of M/s. Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Vs. Aman Kumar Garg, it is held by the Hon’ble National Commission that non-filing of written version to the complaint case before State C.D.R.Commission amounts to admission of allegation levelled against them in the complaint case. Hence, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission the averments as made by the complainant in her complaint petition are deemed to be true.   There is another decision of Hon’ble National Commission as regards to present issue reported in 2019(I) CPR 356(NC) wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that it is the responsibility of supplier company to depute qualified service engineer to determine fault and to ensure that requisite part(s) were duly available and to rectify fault, promptly and dutifully.  In the present case at the time of initial opeeration of the machinery, the technical person of O.Ps could not rectify the defect, which appeared in the machinery due to want of proper programming of machine.  The O.Ps thereafter paid deaf ear to the request of the complainant in rectifying the defect of the machine.  The O.Ps have neither removed the defect nor have replaced the machine.  The O.Ps also have not refunded the cost of the machine as requested by the complainant.  As such, the O.Ps are undoubtedly have practised unfair trade practice as well as have committed deficiency in their service. 

Point No.i.

          The complainant has started her business for her self-employment in order to earn her livelihood.  She required the machineries as described for her business.  In this regard there is a pertinent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2018(3) C.P.R 1(SC) in the case of M/s. Paramount Digital Colar Lab and others etc. Vrs. M/s. Agfa India Pvt. Ltd. and others etc wherein the Hon’ble Apex court has held that “a person buying and using a machine exclusively for earning his livelihood by means of “self-employment” comes within the definition of “consumer”.  Even if the purchaser of the machine trains another person for operating the machine he is still remains a consumer.”  In view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the complainant is a consumer and the present case is maintainable. 

Point No.iii.

          As per the quotation issued by the O.ps, the complainant had paid Rs.8,30,000/- to the O.Ps for purchasing the machineries.  But the O.Ps have not provided the stabiliser costing of Rs.15,000/- which was included pin quotation.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.15,000/-.  The O.Ps are required to remove the defect of one machine i.e. 4^th Axis Rotary or to replace main machine as well as 4^th Axis Rotary machine as both are inter-connected.  Besides these, the complainant is also entitled to other reliefs.

 

                                                          ORDER

The case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps.  The O.Ps are found to be liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to rectify the defect in the 4^th Axis Rotary machinery which has been installed in the premises of the complainant or to replace the main machine as well as 4^th Axis Rotary machine or in the alternative the O.Ps are to refund the cost of the entire machineries amounting to Rs.8,15,000/-  alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of payment made by the complainant i.e. 2.8.2023 till the amount is quantified.  The O.Ps are further directed to refund Rs.15,000/- to the complainant which they had taken towards the stabiliser cost.  The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for her mental agony and harassment as well as a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

               Order pronounced in the open court on this the 26^th day of July,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                      Member

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President