DATE OF INSTITUTION: 03.07.2014.
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.10.2016.
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (for short, the O.Ps) and redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Brief fact of the case is that the complainant Ch. Subash Chandra Subudhi purchased a bore well machine from O.P.No.1 for his self employment purpose, as per his order dated 1.6.2013 the O.P.No.2 issued a proforma invoice dated 3.6.2013 of Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees Eighteen Lakh Fifty Thousand) only towards the cost of the machine in favour of the complainant bearing Invoice No. 308576. The complainant on dated 10.6.2013 paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) only as an advance amount directly in the current account of O.P.No.2 through Indian Overseas Bank. For the purpose of said borewell unit the complainant availed a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) from the State Bank of India, Bhanjanagar. On 4.9.2013 the S.B.I. Bhanjanagar directly credited to O.P.No.2 Atlas Copco India Ltd. bearing HSBC Account No. 105057434001 by RTGS of Rs.17,50,000/- only after deducting the advance amount paid by the complainant. The O.P.No.2 dispatched the machine on 23.09.2013 through MRC Transolutions Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant had to pay the transportation/freight charges of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) only vide Consignment Note No.14013/334855 and Way Bill No. 21W-13183156449 . The complainant when noticed the defect on the borewell machine regarding ‘Lube oil leakage from exhaust side’ due to which it was not functioning properly, he immediately reported to the O.P.No.1 and on the direction of the said O.P.No.1 on 23.1.2014 the O.P.No.3 and 4 inspected the problem of the machine, admitting the defect apart from a new problem regarding excess dust from the air cleaner housing and advised to sent the Turbo to their workshop for inspection. On 28.1.2014 after inspection the said O.P.No.3 and 4 again advised the complainant to send the entire engine for inspection. On 31.1.2014 the O.P.No.4 advised the complainant to repair the machine and he was required to sign some printed papers believing regarding the warranty claim of the machine. The complainant was also required to purchase the articles serial No. 18 , part No.4039265 of Rs.60,778.29 plus tax from outside. Further he submitted on 11.2.2014 when he visited the O.P.No.4 to take back the repaired engine of the borewell which was covered under warranty period, he was surprised due to demand of repairing expenses of Rs.2,89,394/- (Rupees Two Lakh Eighty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Four) only . The O.P.No.4 had not responded to the request of complainant regarding the warranty claim and bluntly refused to return the borewell to the complainant unless he cleared up all the repair charges. Therefore he was compelled to pay Rs. 2, 25,577.50 paisa (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty Five Thousand Five Hundred Seventy Seven and paisa Fifty) only apart from the purchase of the parts of Rs.60,778.29 from outside. He further stated that he is depositing monthly installment fixed by the loan sanctioning bank since September 2013 to till date without fail out of his own pocket without any business which put the complainant with great financial, psychological, mental trauma. The O.Ps have deliberately committed deficiency in service and harassed the complainant by supplying a defective machine. Therefore he filed this case before this Forum. Being aggrieved he has approached this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of the defective machine/borewell of Rs.18,50,000/- only as paid by the complainant through Bank and the O.Ps to pay Rs.70,000/- only towards mental agony, harassment and to refund the freight/transportation charges of the machine Rs.35,000/- and to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.
3. In support of his case the complainant relies on the documents which are annexed in the case record.
1. Photocopy of Proforma Invoice of ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) ltd.
2. Photocopy of Chief Manager, SBI, Bhanjanagar Branch dated 15.4.2014.
3. Photocopy of Consignee copy of MRC Transolutions pvt. Dated 23.9.2013.
4. Photocopy of Way bill dated 26.9.2013.
5. Photocopy of Cummins field service Report dt.23.1.2014, and 28.1.2014.
6. Photocopy of Annexure dated 31.1.2014 of Jaskar Techno (P) ltd. Bhubaneswar.
7. Photocopy of Jaskar Techno Pvt. Ltd. Revised quotation dated 11.2.2014.
8. Photocopy of service invoice dated 22.2.2014 of Jaskar Techno Pvt. Ltd.
9. Photocopy of Money receipt of Jaskar Techno pvt. Ltd. 10 numbers.
4. Notices was duly served upon to all O.Ps and the O.P.No.3 appeared on dated 12.11.2015. S.R. back from all the O.P.No.1 to 4. Several opportunities was given to all the O.Ps, but they did not file written version, hence they declared set exparte on dated 8.6.2016 and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum which clearly shows that they are willfully neglected to attend the case to defend the claim of the complainant.
5. On the date of hearing, we heard exparte argument from the side of the complainant. The complainant has also filed written argument on dated 18.6.2016. We perused and gone through all documents filed by the complainant. On perusal of the record and documents it clearly reveals that the complainant had purchased a borewell machine for Rs. 18,50,000/- and the invoice was issued by O.P.No.2 on dated 3.6.2013. The O.P.No.2 dispatched the machine on 23.9.2013 through MRC Transolutions Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant had paid transportation/freight charges of Rs.35,000/- vide consignment note No. 14013-334855 and Way bill No. 21W-13183156449. Due to ‘lube oil leakage from exhaust side’ the complainant informed to O.P.No.1 and on direction of O.P.No.1, the O.P.No.3 & 4 inspected the problem of the machine on 23.1.2014 and admitted the same apart from a new problem regarding excess dust from the Air cleaner housing and advised to send the Turbo to their work shop for inspection. On 28.1.2014 again after inspection the O.P.No.3 and 4 advised the complainant to send the entire engine for inspection. On 31.1.2014 the O.P.No.4 advised the complainant to repair the machine and he was required to sign some printed papers believing regarding the warranty claim of the machine. The complainant was also required to purchase the parts serial No. 18 part No. 4039265 for Rs.60,778.29 plus tax from outside for repair of the machine. On 11.2.2014 when the complainant visited the O.P.No.4 to take back the repaired engine of the borewell which was covered under warranty period, the O.P;No.4 demanded the repairing expenses of Rs.2,89,394/- and at last the complainant paid Rs.2,25,577.50 paisa only apart from the purchase of parts of Rs.60,778.29 from outside. To purchase borewell the complainant obtained a loan from SBI Bhanjanagar. After 3 months of purchase of borewell the machine was not functioning properly showing defect as stated above. The defect of machine occurred by the complainant was under warranty period. Although O.P.No.3 & 4 inspected the machine and repaired it, the complainant paid excess repair charges of Rs.2,25,577.50 + Rs.60,778.29 for parts from outside. The complainant paid from his own pocket, from this reason he suffered financial loss. When the borewell was under warranty period it was the duty of the O.P. to repair the machine free of cost. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the O.Ps are liable for charging during warranty period. This is a case of unfair trade practice for which the complainant suffered. The O.Ps are given opportunities to defend their case against the claim of the complainant but they did not prefer to contest the case. In the result, we accept the uncontroverted version of the complainant and allowed the case against O.Ps.
In the result, the Opposite Parties are directed who are jointly and severally liable to refund the repaired charges of the said machine amounting to (Rs.2,25,577.50 + Rs.60,778.29 ) totaling to Rs.2,86,355.79 paisa (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty Six Thousand Three Hundred Fifty Five and Paisa Seventy Nine) only to the complainant along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony and litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize same U/S 25/27 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly the case is disposed of.
The order is pronounced on this day of 27th October 2016 under the signature and seal of this Forum. Copy of order be sent by Registered post to the parties free of cost.
This order be sent to server www.confonet.nic.in. Let the file be consigned to record room.
