Date of Filing : 25.01.2022
Date of Disposal: 24.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.15/2022
THIS THURSDAY, THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
Mr.M. Nagaraj, S/o.Murugesan,
No.33, Durga Colony,
Varadhan Kuttai, Chennai 600 099. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
Mr.Gopinath, Proprietor,
Hari Preetha Enterprises,
B-66, Gali No.19, Kiran Garden,
Utham Nagar, New Delhi – 110 059. …..opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.Naveen Pandey, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 17.11.2022 and on hearing the arguments of PIP/Complainant and Mr.Naveen Pandey, Advocate counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party for the purchase of Single Die Automatic Multi-Purpose machine and Single Die Automatic machine sold by the opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.19,99,999/- in toto towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss incurred by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
The crux of the case of the complainant was that he was working in private company, with an intention to do any self-employment he decided to purchase a new machine for the production of paper cups and had approached the opposite party for the said purpose by paying Rs.2,90,000/- for the purchase of machine. At the time of purchase it was enquired about the number of cups that could be manufactured with one kilo grams of raw materials. The details with regard to the procuring of raw materials without delay and the service details for the machine were also requested from the opposite party. The main reason for purchase of machine with the opposite party was that they assured that there is no limit for purchase of raw materials and they are ready to receive back any number of paper cups produced by the complainant. It was further submitted that the opposite party promised that Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/- could be earned by the complainant in a month and also promised that if the machines were purchased 250 kilo grams raw materials will be given free of cost. Further as per the agreement, the opposite party had imposed a condition that the complainant could not purchase the raw materials from another person apart from them. However, no raw material was sent by them as promised earlier. Thus the complainant alleges that they were not made to work due to deficit supply of raw materials by the opposite parties which caused huge mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The machine supplied by the opposite party became defective. On intimation about the defects though promised the opposite party failed to rectify the same. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not honouring the promise made by them in failing to provide raw materials as demanded by the complainant and also in failing to rectify the error in the machine parts. The present complaint was filed for unfair trade practice along with deficiency in service for the reliefs to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.19,99,999/- in toto towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss incurred by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Defence of the opposite party:-
The complainant was contacted through promotional telephone call on 06.08.2020 and informed about the opposite party business of selling various kinds of paper plate making machines. On several occasions between 06.08.2020 to 03.09.2020 the complainant contacted the opposite party and sought detailed information about the different machines available. On 03.09.2020 the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.3000/- into the bank account of the opposite party as token amount of booking a Single Die Multipurpose Automatic Paper Plate making machine. Thereafter on 11.09.2020 the complainant transferred another sum of Rs.12,000/- and booked a Single Die Multipurpose Automatic Paper Plate making machine and therefore the machines were dispatched to the address of the complainant vide invoice NO.229 dated 12.09.2020 through VRL logistics vide their consignment No.1026248200 dated 14.09.2020. Thereafter on various dates between 22.09.2020 to 03.10.2020 the complainant transferred the balance amount of Rs.2,75,000/- into the bank account of the opposite party and took delivery of the machines. Thereafter a buy-back agreement dated 05.10.2020 was sent to the complainant for affixing his signature and sending back to the opposite party so that the buy-back agreement for buying back the manufactured paper plate from the complainant by the opposite party could be entered into. However, the complainant deliberately kept on avoiding entering into the agreement till 31.12.2020 on one pretext or the other. The machine was installed at the premises of the complainant on 14.10.2020 and in the course of conducting trial run of the machines, sample pieces were manufactured by the trainer in the presence of the complainant. The complainant was also imparted training regarding the machine operation and manufacturing process etc. During 2nd week of December 2020 the complainant informed the opposite party that the heater has been damaged while operating the machine. Accordingly replacement heater was dispatched to the address of the complainant on 16.12.2020 through the professional courier vide consignment No.DEL117710206 on free of cost. Thereafter on 18.12.2020 the complainant sent 4,000 pieces of donas. Upon quality checking for marketability 3,340 pieces of donas were found to be of marketable quality. Accordingly a sum of Rs.1,336/- was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on 06.01.2021. Thereafter on 16.01.2021 the complainant sent 17,600 pieces of donas. Upon quality checking for marketability 16,540 pieces of donas were found to be of marketable quality. Accordingly a sum of Rs.6,616/- was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on 25.01.2021. In the month of January 2021 the complainant informed the opposite party that he was interested in manufacturing paper plates of 8 inches size as such as wanted to purchase 8-inch die. The opposite party informed the complainant that 8-inch paper plates were not in demand as such the opposite party will not be able to extend the buy-back facility for the same. The complainant insisted that he would do self-marketing of the said plates. Accordingly, the said 8-inch die was dispatched to the address of the complainant vide invoice No.UP231 dated 27.01.2021 through VRL Logistics vide their consignment No.1033112089 dated 28.01.2021. Thereafter on 22.01.2021 the complainant sent 61,920 pieces of donas. Upon quality checking for marketability 60,740 pieces of donas were found to be of marketable quality. Accordingly a sum of Rs.24,296/- was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on 05.02.2021. During first week of February 2021 the complainant once again informed the opposite party that the heater has been damaged while operating the machine. Accordingly replacement heater was dispatched to the address of the complainant on 12.02.2021 through the professional courier vide consignment No.DEL117710497 on free of cost. In the first week of April 2021 the complainant informed the opposite party that he was also interested in manufacturing paper plates of 6 inches size as such as wanted to purchase 6-inch die. The opposite party informed the complainant that 6-inch paper plates were not in demand in Delhi as such the opposite party will not be able to extend the buy-back facility for the same. The complainant insisted that he would do self-marketing of the said plates. Accordingly, the said 6-inch die was dispatched to the address of the complainant vide invoice No.UP304 dated 06.04.2021 through VRL Logistics vide their consignment No.1033114442 dated 07.04.2021. Thereafter on 03.07.2021 the complainant sent 1,00,320 pieces of donas. Upon quality checking for marketability 99,440 pieces of donas were found to be of marketable quality. Accordingly a sum of Rs.29,584/- was transferred to the bank account of the complainant on 14.07.2021. In the month of November-December 2021 the complainant started complaining that he was facing issue with transporter as the transporter i.e. VRL logistics was refusing to accept the bookings from him since did not have GST number. On 20.12.2021 the opposite party received a letter dated 15.12.2021 from the complainant. The opposite party was shocked and surprises to observe that till now the complainant through WhatsApp message had been communicating in English language but he had deliberately written the said letter in Tamil language. The complainant was filed that no one in the opposite party’s office knew reading or writing in Tamil language instead of providing an English version of the said letter, the complainant for the reason best known to him and to further harass the opposite party sent another letter dated 31.12.2021 once again deliberately written in Tamil Language which was received by the opposite party in the first week of January 2022 and thereafter the complainant filed the present false and frivolous consumer complaint. It was vehemently wrong and denied that the quality of the raw material supplied by the opposite party was sub-standard or the complainant request the employees of the opposite party to take back the raw-materials supplied by them. It was also vehemently wrong and denied that the employees of the opposite party refused to take back the said raw-materials. It was also vehemently wrong and denied that therefore the complainant forced to manufacture the donas with the same raw-materials supplied by them but he could not get any profit from the same. Further it was denied that still 25 kg of the raw materials lying with the complainant as waste. It was also vehemently denied that the opposite party was entirely responsible for any financial loss suffered by the complainant. It was also denied that the complainant could not do any business/manufacture for 8 months due to the any fault in the machines supplied by the opposite party and consequently suffered mental agony thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 were marked.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1
On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of her allegations;
Payment made by the complainant in favour of Haripreetha Enterprises dated from 03.09.2020 to 03.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A1;
Receipt issued for delivery of the machine from the wherehouse in Thiruvallur dated 05.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A2;
Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party dated 12.09.2020 was marked as Ex.A3;
Electricity Bill was marked as Ex.A4;
Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 15.12.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
Reminder sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 3.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A6;
Signed agreement copy dated 05.10.2020 was marked as Ex.A7;
Receipt for sending paper cups dated 25.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A8;
Receipt given by the opposite party to the complainant regarding less amount dated 04.07.2021 was marked as Ex.A9;
Receipt for sending paper cups dated 07.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A10;
Receipt given by the opposite party to the complainant dated 05.02.2022 was marked as Ex.A11;
Communication between the parties through whatsapp was marked as Ex.A12;
Heater damage photos was marked as Ex.A13;
Receipt for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A14;
On the side of oppostie party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;
Tax invoice dated 12.09.2020 was marked as Ex.B1;
VRL consignor’s copy dated 14.09.2020 was marked as Ex.B2;
E-stamp dated 05.10.2020 was marked as Ex.B3;
The professional courier receipt dated 16.12.2020 was marked as Ex.B4;
Bill of supply dated 27.01.2021 was marked as Ex.B5;
VRL Consignor’s copy dated 28.01.2021 was marked as Ex.B6;
Invoice – Sri Varagi paper plates dated 07.01.2021 was marked as Ex.B7;
The professional couriers receipt dated 12.02.2021 was marked as Ex.B8;
Bill of supply dated 06.04.2021 was marked as Ex.B9;
VRL consignor’s copy dated 07.04.2021 was marked as Ex.B10;
Tax Invoice dated 02.07.2021 was marked as Ex.B11;
G-mails were marked as Ex.B12;
Voice message was marked as Ex.B13;
Heard the oral arguments made by both parties and perused the pleadings and evidences produced by them. The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the complainant is that he had purchased a Single Die Automatic Multi-Purpose machine and Single Dye Automatic machine from the opposite party with an intention to earn Rs.40,000/- to Rs.45,000/- in a month as promised by them. It was the main contention that though promised by the opposite party that there was no limit for raw materials to be supplied and that the complainant can get the raw materials as and when required, the opposite party failed to provide the raw materials when requested by the complainant. It was contended that when as per the agreement entered with the opposite party that the complainant should not purchase raw materials from any other person except them, the non supply of raw materials when demanded by the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. The opposite party assured that the machine was defected, the same was rectified at free of cost but failed to do so as promised by the opposite party which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
It was also contented by the complainant that the Single Die Automatic Multi-Purpose machine and Single Dye Automatic machine supplied to him got repaired frequently and when the opposite party was informed they did not attend the repairs promptly. The complainant has stated various particulars as to when he ordered for raw materials and when they were despatched or refused or raw materials sent back as they were less in quality. The agreement between the parties was also relied upon by the complainant to contend that he was not permitted to get raw materials from others apart from the opposite party. Thus these are all the disputed facts alleged by the complainant and the same was denied by the opposite party stating that the finished products sent by the complainant as consignment was not packed properly and hence every time for example during the first despatch out of 61,740 pieces only 60,740 pieces were of marketable quality and in the 2nd despatch out of 1,00,320 paper plates only 99,440- pieces were found to be of marketable quality. Further the contentions of the opposite party were denied by the complainant contending that the request for raw materials was not honoured by the opposite party as per agreement. On going through the pleadings and evidences this commission is of the view that the dispute raised by the complainant and denied by the opposite party regarding accounts could not be tried in a summary manner by this commission as the issue involves complicated question of facts based on a contract which could not be tried in a summary manner. Both the parties are required to lead evidence as to the quantity of supply of raw materials, despatch of finished product, marketable quality of the despatched products and defects in the machine supplied to the complainant etc which is not possible before this Forum. In such circumstances we are of the view that the complainant has to approach only the competent Civil Court to get remedy for his grievance as before Civil Court he can adduce sufficient evidences and also the opposite parties will get an opportunity to advance their defence. Thus we answer the point holding that the present complaint as filed is not maintainable before this commission as the transactions are based on an agreement.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the complaint is not maintainable before this commission, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 ............... Payment made by the complainant in favour of Haripreetha Enterprises dated from 03.09.2020 to 03.10.2020. Xerox
Ex.A2 05.10.2020 Receipt issued for delivery of the machine from the wherehouse in Thiruvallur. Xerox
Ex.A3 12.09.2020 Tax Invoice issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 ............... Electricity bills. Xerox
Ex.A5 15.12.2021 Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A6 30.02.2021 Reminder sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A7 05.10.2021 Signed agreement copy. Xerox
Ex.A8 25.06.2021 Receipt for sending paper cups. Xerox
Ex.A9 04.07.2021 Receipt given by the opposite party to the complainant regarding less amount. Xerox
Ex.A10 07.01.2022 Receipt for sending paper cups. Xerox
Ex.A11 05.02.2022 Receipt given by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
`Ex.A12 ............ Communication between the parties through whatsapp Xerox
Ex.A13 ................ Heater damage photos. Xerox
Ex.A14 ................. Receipt for proof of delivery. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 12.09.2020 Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.B2 14.09.2020 VRL consignor’s copy. Xerox
Ex.B3 05.10.2020 E-stamp. Xerox
Ex.B4 16.12.2020 The professional Courier receipts. Xerox
Ex.B5 27.01.2021 Bill of supply. Xerox
Ex.B6 28.01.2021 VRL consignor’s copy. Xerox
Ex.B7 07.01.2021 Invoice-Sri Varagi paper plate. Xerox
Ex.B8 12.02.2021 The professional couriers receipts. Xerox
Ex.B9 06.04.2021 Bill of supply. Xerox
Ex.B10 07.04.2021 VRL consignor’s copy. Xerox
Ex.B11 02.07.2021 Tax Invoice. Xerox
Ex.B12 16.12.2020 G-Mails. Xerox
Ex.B13 20.11.2020 Voice message. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
