Date of Filing : 31.01.2020
Date of Disposal: 26.09.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L. ..… MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.10/2020
THIS MONDAY, THE 26th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
Mr.M. Mahadevan, S/o.V.Munusamy,
No.25,Anjaneyapuram 4th Street,
Kakkalur, Thiruvallur District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager,
Haripreetha Enterprises,
A-11C, Gaali No.10, Kiran Garden,
Utham Nagar, New Delhi -110 059.
2.Mrs.Vijayalakshmi, (C.A.Enterprises),
Proprietor,
B-1/3, Gaali No.15, Kiran Garden,
Utham Nagar, New Delhi – 110 059.
3.The Manager, Haripreetha Enterprises,
Madurai Main Road,
Nilakottai, Dindugal, Tamil Nadu -624 208.
4.Thiru.A.S.Karthick, (the Machanic),
No.21, Saroja Nagar,
Kogulam Garden Extension,
Melnallathur, Thiruvallur District – 602 002. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Party in Person.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Mr.R.Baskar Kumaravel, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 07.09.2022 and on hearing the arguments of PIP/Complainant 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 parties for the purchase of Double Die Fully Automatic Multi-Purpose machine sold by the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.3,50,700/- and also to pay Rs.53,896/-the cost incurred by the complainant along with compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Sum and substance of the complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that after he was left jobless, 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 parties for the said purpose by paying Rs.3,50,000/- for the purchase of machine and for raw materials paid Rs.35,000/- thus totally a sum of Rs.3,85,000/- has been paid to the opposite parties. 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 was also requested from the opposite parties and the particulars were furnished by the opposite parties after which the agreement was entered. The main reason for purchase of machine with the opposite parties 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 parties promised that Rs.40,000/- to 45,000/- could be earned by the complainant in a month and also promised that if the machine was purchased another Single Die Fully Automatic machine and 200 kilo grams raw materials will be given free of cost. However, when the bill was issued the complainant was shocked to see that the address was given as C.A. Enterprises, New Delhi which was a different entity other than the opposite party. As promised by the opposite party that a Single Die Fully Automatic machine and 200 kilo grams raw materials would be given free of cost at the time of purchase was not given by the opposite parties. Further as per the agreement, the opposite parties had imposed a condition that the complainant could not purchase the raw materials from another person apart from them. On 19.07.2019 Rs.35,000/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite parties towards purchase of raw materials. However, no raw material was sent by them as promised earlier. Thus the complainant alleges that they were made to work only five days due to deficit supply of raw materials by the opposite parties which caused huge mental agony and hardship to the complainant as they were made to suffer without any work as there was work only for five to seven days in a month. The machine supplied by the opposite parties became defective and the bearing bush, spring, wheel belt etc., got damaged. On intimation about the defects though promised the opposite parties failed to rectify the same. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 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 parties to refund Rs.3,50,700/- and also pay Rs.53,896/-the cost incurred by the complainant along with compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
Defence of the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties denied the complaint allegations contending that on 15.05.2019 the complainant’s wife contacted the opposite parties for purchase of the machine and that she was informed about all the available options such as semi-automatic, fully automatic, single-die, double-die etc. As per the sale promotion scheme existing at that time the opposite party 2 had offered to give a Single Die Fully Automatic paper plate making machine along with 200 kilo grams of raw materials free of cost upon purchasing Double Die Fully-Automatic paper plate making machine. Finally on 13.06.2019 the complainant expressed their willingness to purchase a Double Die Fully-Automatic paper plate making machine worth Rs.3,00,000/- and paid a booking amount of Rs.10,000/- on the same day. The machine was dispatched by the opposite parties to the complainant directly on 22.06.2019 through VRL Logistics. Thereafter on 08.07.2019 the complainant transferred the balance amount of Rs.2,90,000/- along with an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- towards deposit for raw materials to be supplied as and when requested by the complainant. In the mean time on 19.07.2019 the complainant transferred another Rs.35,000/- and requested to supply 500 kilo grams of raw materials and the same was despatched vide invoices No.469 dated 23.07.2019 and No.490 dated 20.08.2019. However till 08.08.2019 the complainant did not sent any finished goods to opposite party 2. On 08.08.2019 the complainant despatched the first consignment of finished goods of 48,586 pieces of paper plates. The consignment was packed poorly which caused damaged to the paper cups and on quality check a total of 41,486 pieces were found to be of marketable quality and a sum of Rs.14,520/- was remitted to complainant’s bank account towards value for the marketable pieces. When the complainant through What App images shared pictures of damaged spring, belt, bearing etc a technician was sent and the necessary parts were replaced. On 14.09.2019 the complainant sent another consignment of 61,000/- pieces of paper plates and the same was also not packed properly due to which many paper cups got damaged. However on request of the complainant 230 kilo grams and 150 kilo grams of raw materials were despatched on 16.09.2019 and 01.10.2019 respectively. The complainant was demanding that he should be paid the price on the basis of the number of pieces supplied to the opposite party irrespective of damage caused to the paper cups and the said demand was rejected by the opposite party 2. The complainant demanded that the opposite party 2 should take back the machine and refund the cost of the machine to the complainant. The opposite parties also contended that the complainant could not made an issue as to the invoice bill in the name of C.A. Enterprises, New Delhi as he was informed clearly that in order to save time in delivering the machine Haripreetha Enterprises asked CA Enterprises to directly despatch the machine to the nearest location of the complainant. Thus contending all the allegations made by the complainant unsustainable the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 were marked on their side. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 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;
Advance payment receipt made by the complainant in favour of Haripreetha Enterprises dated13.06.2019 and balance payment made by the complainant to the Haripreetha enterprises dated 08.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Signed agreement copy dated 07.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A2;
Receipt issued for delivery of the machine from the wherehouse in Thiruvallur and receipt copy for free products dated 22.06.2019 &10.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Receipt for purchase of raw materials paid through City Union Bank, Thiruvallur dated 19.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;
Letter issued by Mechanic karthick for non inspection of the machine dated 30.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;
The wherehouse fees towards 300kg raw materials sent by the opposite parties dated 02.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;
Copy sent as the raw materials sent by the opposite party was not upto the standard dated 09.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;
Wherehouse fees receipt for sending second time raw materials of 250 kilo grams dated 31.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A8;
Wherehouse fees receipt for sending time raw materials of 260 kilo grams dated 03.10.2019 was marked as Ex.A9;
Photographs of the machine and the defective part sent through whatsup was marked as Ex.A10;
Receipts showing the paper cups manufacture and sent to the opposite parties dated 14.08.2019 & 14.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A11;
Statement of Account for receipt of payment from the opposite parties for the paper cups towards cost of paper cups sent by the complainant was marked as Ex.A12;
Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 26.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A13;
Acknowledgement for receipt of the letter by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A14;
Remaining letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 21.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A15;
Acknowledgement for receipt of the reminder was marked as Ex.A16;
Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party’s address at Nilakkotai dated 04.01.2020 was marked as Ex.A17;
Acknowledgement showing that the opposite party at Nilakkotai has left the place dated 13.01.2020 was marked as Ex.A18;
On the side of oppostie parties the following documents were filed in support of their defence;
Photographs of package damaged in transit and received vide invoice No.001 dated 08.08.2019 was marked as Ex.B1;
Proof of payment of Rs.14,520/- into the bank account of complainant on 04.09.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;
Photographs of package damaged in transit and received vide invoice No.003 dated 14.09.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;
Proof of payment of Rs.14,385/- in to the bank account of complainant dated 04.10.2019 was marked as Ex.B4;
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 Double Die Fully Automatic Multi-Purpose machine from the opposite parties 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 2nd 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 parties failed to provide the raw materials when requested by the complainant. It was contended that when as per the agreement entered with the opposite parties 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. Also as promised by the opposite parties that the Single Die Fully Automatic machine and 200 kilo grams raw materials was not given free of cost as promise which amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
It was also contented by the complainant that the Double Die Fully Automatic Multi-Purpose machine supplied to him got repaired frequently and when the opposite parties was informed they sent technician belatedly and hence 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 parties. Thus these are all the disputed facts alleged by the complainant and the same was denied by the opposite parties 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 48,586 pieces only 41,486 pieces were of marketable quality and in the 2nd despatch out of 61,000 paper plates only 41,100/- pieces were found to be of marketable quality. Further the contentions of the opposite parties were denied by the complainant contending that the request for raw materials was not honoured by the opposite parties 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 parties 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 plausible 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 26th day of September 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 13.06.2019
08.07.2019 Advance payment receipt made by the complainant in favour of Haripreetha Enterprises.
Balance paymet made by the complainant to the haripreetha enterprises.
Xerox
Ex.A2 17.07.2019 Signed agreement copy. Xerox
Ex.A3 22.06.2019
&10.07.2019 Receipt issued for delivery of the machine from the wherehouse in Thiruvallur and receipt copy for free products. Xerox
Ex.A4 19.07.2019 Receipt for purchase of raw materials paid through City Union Bank, Thiruvallur. Xerox
Ex.A5 30.11.2019 Letter issued by Mechanic karthick for non inspection of the machine. Xerox
Ex.A6 02.08.2019 The wherehouse fees towards 300kg raw materials sent by the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A7 09.08.2019 Copy sent as the raw materials sent by the opposite party was not upto the standard. Xerox
Ex.A8 31.08.2019 Wherehouse fees receipt for senting second time raw materials of 250 kilo grams. Xerox
Ex.A9 03.10.2019 Wherehouse fees receipt for senting time raw materials of 260 kilo grams. Xerox
Ex.A10 ............... Photographs of the machine and the defective part sent through whatsp. Xerox
Ex.A11 14.08.2019
&
14.09.2019 Receipts showing the paper cups manufacture and sent to the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A12 ............... Statement of Account for receipt of payment from the opposite parties for the paper cups towards cost of paper cups sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A13 26.11.2019 Letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A14 ............ Acknowledgement for receipt of the letter by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A15 21.12.2019 Remaining letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A16 ............. Acknowledgement for receipt of the reminder. Xerox
Ex.A17 04.01.2020 Letter sent by the complainant to the oppostie party’s address at Nilakkotai. Xerox
Ex.A18 13.01.2020 Acknowledgement showing that the opposite party at Nilakkotai has left the place. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 ............. Photographs of package damaged in transit Xerox
Ex.B2 04.09.2019 Proof of payment of Rs.14,520/- into the bank account of complainatn on 04.09.2019. Xerox
Ex.B3 ............. Photographs of package damaged in transit. Xerox
Ex.B4 04.10.2019 Proof of payment of Rs.14,385/- in to the bank account of complainant. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
