Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/115/2017

ARAVIND ENGINEERING WORKS AND ANR - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Venkatesan - Opp.Party(s)

E.D.Sethupathi-applt

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

                 BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                                Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL             MEMBER                        

                      

F.A.NO.115/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.27/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Krishnagiri)

 

DATED THIS THE 19^th DAY OF APRIL 2022

 

1.       M/s. Aravind Engineering Works

          Rep. by Aravindan

          No.189/1, S.S.Garden, Ganeshapuram

          Pothanur Post, Coimbatore – 641 023

 

2.       Aravindan

          Owner, M/s. Aravind Engineering Works

          Rep. by Aravindan                                               M/s. ED. Sethupathi

          No.189/1, S.S.Garden, Ganeshapuram                       Counsel for

          Pothanur Post, Coimbatore – 641 023                   Appellants / Opposite parties

 

 

                                                         Vs.

M. Venkatesan

S/o. Mariappan

Owner, “Take New Industries”                       M/s. Sayeedain Mohamed Arif Hayath

Door No.15, Industrial Estate, Sidco                                    Counsel for

Londonpettai, Krishnagiri – 635 001                         Respondent/ Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.5.12.2014 in CC. No.27/2013.

 

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing appellant, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.      The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

 

2.    The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant being an Engineering graduate was interested in self employment, intended to start a paper cup production factory.  Therefore, on seeing an advertisement, the complainant approached the opposite parties for the purchase of a paper cup machine.  After obtaining a quotation, he paid the entire cost of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the purchase of fully automatic paper cups running machinery, including the cost for installation, on 17.8.2012.  The opposite parties had also installed the machinery in the premises of the complainant at Krishnagiri on 12.12.2013.  The machinery was said to have  a warranty period of one year.  But the machinery was not functioning correctly.  Inspite of several reminders and after causing legal notice there was no response.  Therefore, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the cost of the machinery on taking the machinery back, and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, and a further sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for mental agony.

 

3.       The Appellants/ opposite parties, though served, remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant,  directing the appellants/opposite parties to refund the cost of the machinery on taking back the machine alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. 

 

4.       The learned counsel for the appellants/ opposite parties had submitted before this commission that the District Commission had failed to note that the Complainant is not a consumer, since the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is commercial in nature.  Moreover, the complainant said to have   forwarded his complaint through an e-mail id, which does not belong to the opposite parties.  Therefore, the complaint itself is not maintainable.  Without providing an opportunity the opposite parties cannot prove their case. The non-appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  If an opportunity is provided, the opposite parties has a fair chance of succeeding the case.  Thus prayed for a chance to contest the case on merit. 

 

5.       The District Commission had allowed the complaint by holding that the complainant had proved his case that he purchased the machine from the opposite parties was defective one.  It was further held by the District Commission that opposite parties had refused to receive the legal notice of the complainant, though residing in the same address where the notice of the District Commission was served.

The opposite parties would contend that since the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is commercial in nature.  Therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable. Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

  In the absence of reply version and documents in support of the contentions of the opposite parties about the facts, we feel that it may not be proper to decide the deficiency, which is not legally sustainable also.  Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the lethargic attitude of the opposite parties in not responding to the notice of the District Commission, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.31.3.2022 we have directed the appellants/opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost to the legal aid account of the State Commission, by way of Demand Draft drawn in favour of Registrar, State Commission, on or before 18.4.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  

 

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission in C.C.No.27/2013 dt.5.12.2014, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Krihnagiri, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Krishnagiri on 19.5.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the opposite parties shall file not only the vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellants, shall abide the result of the District Commission, in the original complaint, on merit.

 

 

 

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                          R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT