JUDGMENT

            The complainant has filed this complaint u/sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act – 1986 against the OP alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective fully automatic double die paper plate machine to the complainant.  Hence pray for to refund the price amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and in regard to deficiency in service and also loss of earning, and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of this notice and Rs.1,00,000/- for which complainant has already spent.

             2. Brief averments of the Complaint are as under;

            The complainant alleged that as per the advertisement, the complainant booked fully automatic double die paper plate machine.  The machine cost is Rs.1,40,000/- and after discount the cost of the machine is Rs.1,20,000/-.  The complainant deposited Rs.1,20,000/- to the respondent bank account No.630105006716 ICICI Bank.  Later on the respondent can send the above machine through VRL Transport.  Then the complainant received the above machine and brought to their unit.

            The complainant further alleged that at the time of booking the machine, the respondent assured that a person from their side would come and to show how to operate the machine.  But the respondent did not send any person.  Then the complainant further alleged that he contacted the respondents through phone so many times but the respondent did not response to it and the machine’s condition is also not good.

            The complainant further alleged that the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- but the respondent has sent a bill of Rs.18,000/- only on 15-12-2014 through bill No.003.  By this, the complainant was shocked due to respondent’s unfair trade practice.  The complainant contacted the respondent through phone and enquired about the bill, the respondent gave him the reply that due to less amount bill one can save sales tax.  But this is not proper reason and it is illegal attitude of the respondents.

            The complainant further alleged that the complainant has spent Rs.1,00,000/- for preparation for shed and KEB power supply permission etc.,  The complainant does not have belief in the respondent’s company.  So the complainant has decided to return the above machine.

            The complainant further alleged that he has issued a legal notice on 12-01-2015 to the respondent and the said notice is refused by him and it is deemed to be served.  Hence prays for direction to OP to take back machine and return the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- and also pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards unfair trade practice and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- towards cost and Rs.1,00,000/- for the complainant already spent as prayed above.

            3.  The Forum has issued notice to OP and the same is executed on him.  The OP has failed to appear before the Forum on the date of appearance and hence he was placed exparte and the case was posted to complainant evidence.

            4.  To prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself examined as PW1 and he has got marked documents as per Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.7 and closed their side of the evidence.

5.  Heard the counsel for complainant and perused the records.

6.  Now the points that arises for our consideration are as under;

POINTS

1.  Whether there is unfair trade practice in selling defective handset to the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for?

3. What order?

7.  Our findings;

Point No. 1 :   In Negative

Point No. 2 :   In Negative

                  Point No. 3 : As per final Order for the following

REASONS

8.  POINT No. 1 and 2:  As these two issues are interconnected each other.  Hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts, evidence documents and arguments.

            9.  On perusal of the pleadings, evidence coupled with the documents of respective parties on record, it is the case of a complainant against OP alleging unfair trade practice in selling a defective machine on going through the documents produced by the complainant, i.e., the catalog which has been marked as Ex.A.1.  where in the document, clearly shows the cost of the machine and picture of the fully automatic Double Die Paper Plate machine along with its warranty and features of the product.

            On perusal of Ex.A.2, it can be said that the payment of Rs.1,20,000/- is paid in ICICI Bank to the OP in channels on different dates, i.e. dated: 08-12-2014, 15-12-2014, 21-12-2014 and 29-14-2014 on the name of the Home Business Industry.  As per Ex.A.3, it is the bill/cash memo of Home Business Industry without any TIN number on the bill.  On perusal of Ex.A.3, it is certified that the total amount bill is Rs.18,000/- only and the date written on it as 15-12-2014.  Whereas the complainant in his chief examination has deposed that on enquiry with the OP through the phone, the OP has contended that in order to save sale tax the less amount bill has been send.  But to prove this content,  the complainant has not produced any of the other cogent and corroborative evidence except putting suggestion to that.  Even in the particulars of the bill, it is mentioned as Hydrolic machine not fully automatic double die paper plate machine.  But the said document is not sufficient to prove that a fully Automatic Double die paper plate machine is purchased.  The complainant has also not produced any other document like the online advertisement copy given by the OP and also the booking details of the machine, when it was booked by the complainant.  So also on perusal of Ex.A.7, the VRL logistic delivery receipt, the description of the produce is mentioned as Hydrolic Machine, the particular fully automatic double die paper machine is no where mentioned in any of the documents.  So by this a doubt is created in the minds, whether this machine is purchased by the complainant.  No evidence is shown by the complainant to prove that the particular machine is purchased by him and that machine is in existence with him except the deposited amount to that particular account of OP.  The amount is also paid under 4 channals on different dates.  But Ex.A.3 contains the bill date as 15-12-2014.  The amount deposited in the account shows that from 08-12-2014 the amount has been deposited.  He has not produced any documents to show that he is having that particular machine in his custody and that amount is deposited for purchase of that fully automatic double die paper plate machine.

            So also, on perusal of Ex.A.6, the legal notice issued by the counsel for the complainant has retuned un-served and in chief examination, the PW1 has deposed that it has been refused by the OP.  After verification from the Postal Department regarding the confirmation delivery on the OP, it is shown by the Postal Department in their website, that it endorsed as ‘Not Found’.  This was enquired as the endorsement was not clear on the Ex.A.6.  But the complainant has falsely deposed that it has been refused by the OP.  Hence his version is not believable with respect to specific defence set up by the PW1 that the OP has refused to take the notice and so also the version is also not believable with respect to the purchase of the product.  The complainant has failed to prove that a fully automatic double die paper plate machine was purchased with OP.  Therefore, the complainant fails to prove that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP as contended in the complaint and has not been proved by them by adducing cogent and corroborative evidence.  Hence in the light of above observations, the complainant is not entitled any relief as prayed for.  Accordingly we constrained to hold issue No. 1 and 2 in Negative.

9.  POINT No. 3 :- Hence, in the result, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed.

2. Send the free copies of this order to both parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, typed by her, typescript, corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Forum on 7^th day of December 2015.

// ANNEXURE //

List of Documents Exhibited for the Complainant.

Witnesses examined for the Complainant / Respondent.