For Complainant : Sri Gouree Sankar Mishra, Advocate.
For Opp. Party : None.
-x-
1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that on going through an advertisement published by the OP, she wanted to purchase an Agarbati producing machine for earning her livelihood and signed an agreement with the OP on 26.6.2017 with condition inter alia that the OP would purchase the finished goods from the complainant @ Rs.20/- per Kg. and in every 3 months, the OP shall send its mechanic to verify proper functioning of the machine once in every 3 months for the first year. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.1, 20,000/- to the OP on 26.6.2017 towards the cost of the machine and when the OP was asked for warranty documents, he replied that the same would be sent along with machine but till date the complainant has not received the said document. It is submitted that after some days, the machine comprising of two parts transported to the complainant at Jeypore (i) automatic producing part, (ii) manual handling part and a couple of days thereafter, a trainer-mechanic came to Jeypore to operate the machine and found automatic part is not functioning. It is further submitted that after few days another mechanic came and he also failed to operate the machine. The complainant informed the OP over phone to depute the mechanic but the OP remained silent. Thus alleging defect in goods and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, she filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP either to replace the machine with a defect free one or to refund Rs.1, 20,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. besides Rs.7000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The OP in spite of valid notice neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and thus remained exparte. We have heard from the A/R for the complainant and perused the materials available on record for orders.
3. In this case purchase of Agarbati making machine by the complainant from the OP through an agreement dt.26.6.2017 on payment of Rs.1, 20,000/- is an admitted fact. As per said agreement, the OP was to install the machine and will depute trainer to verify the functioning of the machine once in 3 months for the first year. According to the complainant, the OP transported Agarbati making machine comprising 2 parts (i) automatic producing part and (ii) manual handling part to Jeypore and deputed mechanic after a couple of days with some spare parts. The mechanic fitted the parts in the machine but the automatic part did not function. The mechanic intimated the fact to the OP and left Jeypore in the same evening.
4. It is the case of the complainant that, a few days later the mechanic again came to Jeypore with some spare parts and tried to run the machine but the automatic part still did not work. The complainant requested the OP to depute mechanic to set right the entire machine but the OP did not listen at all. Hence she sent advocate notice on 11.9.2017 calling upon the OP to repair the machine suitably or replace with a new one but the OP replied that the complainant has intimated him that the machine is working properly and the OP has performed his part of obligation as per agreement.
5. In absence of counter and participation of OP in this proceeding, we lost opportunity to know anything from the OP and hence allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged. However, we are inclined to go into the merits of this case.
6. It is seen from the record that the OP has received Rs.1, 20, 000/- in cash from the complainant vide Bill No.337 dt.26.6.17 towards cost of Agarbati producing tools. As such the machine has been supplied by the OP. According to the complainant, the machine did not function from the first installation by the mechanic of the OP. Again the OP has sent its mechanic for repair or proper functioning of the machine. This time also the machine did not function. The complainant has intimated the fact to the OP over phone and as the OP did not respond, she sent a legal notice on 11.9.2017 to which the OP replied on 13.9.17. From the above facts it became crystal clear that the machine did not function from the date of its commission.
7. It is also a fact that any goods offered for sale certainly bears at least one year warranty from the date of its sale but in this case, the agreement of the OP is silent about the warranty of the machine though received cost of it. In spite of reminders and legal notice, the OP didn’t come forward either to repair the machine sold by it or replace the same with a new defect free machine within warranty period. This inaction of the OP, in our opinion, certainly amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant had purchased the machine for earning her livelihood by way of self employment but her ambition could not be materialized due to such inaction of the OP.
8. In the above premises, it can be safely concluded that the OP has supplied the defective machine to the complainant after taking the full consideration amount and also did not care for after sale service. As such the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.1, 20,000/- with due interest from the OP in lieu of defective machine. Further due to such inaction of the OP, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has incurred some expenditure towards cost of litigation. Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
9. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to refund Rs.1, 20,000/- towards cost of the Agarbati producing machine with interest @ 12% p.a. from 26.6.2017 in lieu of said defective machine and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation besides Rs. 2000/- towards cost to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
