Tripura

Unakoti

CC/22/2023

Dipen Kumar Sarma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Machine World & Other - Opp.Party(s)

Ambalika Sinha, S. Islam Gani

26 Sep 2024

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Redressal Commission

Unakoti District : Kailashahar

 

C A S E NO. C. C. 22 of 2023

 

                                                                                      Sri Dipen Kumar Sarma

                                                  S/O – Dakshina Ranjan Sarma

                                                  Vill – Thana Road,

                                                  PO & PS – Dharmanagar,

                                                  District - Unakoti, Tripura

                                                                                                   …......Complainant  

 

                                                         V E R S U S

                               

                                                                                      Machine World

                                                                                      79B, Matheswartala Road

                                                                                      Tangra, Chaina Town

                                                                                      (Near Chinese Kali Mandir)

                                                                                      Kolkata – 700046,

                                                                                      is represent by its Managing Director

 

                                                                                      The Proprietor, Chandan Das

                                                                                      Machine World,

                                                                                      79B, Matheswartala Road

                                                                                      Tangra, Chaina Town

                                                                                      (Near Chinese Kali Mandir)

                                                                                      Kolkata – 700046,                                              

                                                                                                       ……..Opposite parties

                                                                              

                                                  P R E S E N T

                                                                                   Smt. S. Choudhury

                                                                                        President

                                                                District Consumer Redressal Commission

                                                                         Unakoti District :: Kailashahar

 

                                        A N D

                                                                             Sri S. Sinha, Member                                      

                                                                           Smti. M. Datta, Member

 

                                                            C O U N S E L

                                                             For the Complainant :- Mr. Sandip Debroy, Ld. Advocate

                                                             For the Opposite Parties : - Heard Ex-parte

                                                             Original date of institution: 20-12-2023

                                                 Judgment delivered on : 26-09-2024   

 

                                                        J u d g m e n t

 

            This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Sri Dipen Kumar Sarma under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for passing necessary order to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,00,000/- for compensation.

           

2.         The facts leading to the filing of the instant complaint petition are that the complainant purchased one “Bio Degradable Sealing and Punching Machine” from the opposite party No.2 on 21-12-2022 for a consideration money of Rs.7,29,000/-, including amount of advance payment of Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, OP sent the machine to the address of the complainant. One person from the company came and installed the machine. The complainant beared the flight charges and the fooding and lodging of the person, for which he also expended an amount of Rs.2 lac approximately, but after installation of the machine it did not work properly as the machine had manufacturing defect. Regular pasting was not functioning and as such, eco friendly carry bags could not be made. The complainant made contact with the OPs, but did not get any relief from the opposite parties and as such, the instant complaint for getting compensation from the opposite parties.

 

3.         On receipt of the notice opposite parties did not appear and as such, vide order dated 16-02-2024 the case is running ex-parte against the opposite parties.

                       

4.       The complainant has adduced evidence by way of examination-in-chief on affidavit as PW-1 recapitulating the facts as have been stated by his in the complaint petition and as such, for the sake of brevity the evidence is not repeated. However, during re-examination, the complainant has exhibited the following documents: -

• Original money receipt dated 21-12-2022 – Exbt. P1.
• IPO as mentioned in Sl. No. 8 of the firisti – Exbt. P2.

           

5.         Heard learned counsel of the complainant. Learned counsel Ms. Ambalika Sinha submitted that the complainant purchased Bio Degradable Sealing and Punching Machine from the opposite party no.2 for an amount of rs.7,72,300/-, but after installation the machine showed defects and the purpose of the complainant was totally frustrated as the machine did not produce eco friendly carry bags. The complainant approached the opposite parties to substitute the machine, but the opposite parties did not respond and now the complainant is entitled to compensation as the cost of the machine including installation charge and other expenditure borne by him. 

 

6.        The points required to be adjudicated in this case are as follows:

• Whether the complaint is a consumer of the OP?
• Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the cost of the machine or to get back new machine?

 

 DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

     

7.         Exbt. P1 is the money receipt dated 21-12-2022 issued to the complainant by the OP No.2. the cost of the machine including GST comes at Rs.7,72,300/-. As the complainant had purchased the machine from the opposite parties by paying the consideration money, with a view to start a business for maintaining his livelihood, he is ofcourse a consumer for the opposite parties.

            Point No.1 is decided as in favour of the complainant.

            Except money receipt no document is submitted by the complainant. It is alleged by the complainant that the machine supplied by the opposite parties is a defective machine, for which product could not be produced by the said defective machine. The complainant in the complaint petition stated that he made contact to the opposite parties for getting redress, but the complainant did not submit any scrap of paper showing that he communicated with the opposite parties for getting relief. If the machine was really defective and the complainant approach the opposite parties with specific complaint, the complainant would have submitted the same before this Commission and in absence of any paper it is difficult to believe that the machine supplied by the opposite parties to the complainant was a defective one. Only submitting money receipt and some vague and wild allegation about the defect of the machine does not prove that the machine received by the complainant was defective and non-functioning. As such, this Commission is unable to give any relief to the complainant.

            Point No. 2 is thus decided accordingly.

O R D E R

                                                

8.         In the result, it is ordered that the complaint petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. The complainant is not entitled to any relief.

9.         The case stands disposed of accordingly.

10.       Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant free of cost.

11.       Make necessary entry in the TR.

 

                                                  ANNOUNCED

                                                                                                     (S. Choudhury)

                                                                                                           President

         (S. Sinha)                       (M. Datta)

          Member                          Member