DOF.24.4.2008 DOO./ 19/7 /2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Preethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this,19th the July day of 2010 CC.78/2008 Chinnamma, Pandalam House,President, Navajyothi Swasraya Sangam, Odanthode,Manathana.P.O. Complainants (Rep. by Adv.P.J.Sunny) Manager, DEEPAM PALM DISH, St.thomas Street,Thrissur 680 006. (Rep. by Adv.P.K.Sajeevan) Opposite Parties O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under sectin12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to take back the defective machine after refund of its value Rs.84, 375/- along with compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with cost. The case of the complainant is that the complaint is the President of the self help group by name “Nava Jyothi Swashraya Sangam”. The representative of the opposite party had took a class conducted by the Kudumbasree Mission in 2005 at Kannur Jawahar Auditorium and he described about the features and peculiarities of the palm dish machine and informed the participants that the machine can produce a dish within 3 minutes, and that the opposite party can give training to those who are willing to start the unit and can approach opposite party. The complainant along with the members of her unit was the participants of the above meeting. Accordingly the complainant contacted the Panchayath authorities of Kanichar Panchayath for availing the training program to her and othermembers and accordingly the Panchayath authorities had made necessary arrangements. Accordingly on 1.7.06 the opposite party had given training to the 9 members of her units for making Palm dishes with the help of Palm dish making machine and the machine which was brought by the opposite arty for making palm dish was in good working condition and made palm dishes within 3 minutes. So the Peravoor Block Panchayath and NMG Bank had shown their readiness for giving 50% subsidy for starting the unit for making palm dishes and the opposite party had given a project report for starting the palm dish unit. The complainant had incurred Rs.1, 65,130/- for starting the project. Out of these amount Rs.82,500/-was given by Peravoor Block Panchayath and the NMG Bank had allowed Rs.82630/- as loan. The opposite party had received Rs.84, 375/- from NMG Bank as the price of the machine, after installing the machine in the complainant’s rented building. The opposite party had worked the machine on the date of inauguration and the outcome from the machine was all damaged dishes and all the persons who had attend the inaugural function were witnesses for this. But the opposite party’s person represented that this was happened because the machine was a new one and after few days they will get good products from the machine. But the machine has no change even after lapse of days. So the complainant had approached the opposite party for repairing the machine for several times. But they are not ready to do so. They were amenable for repair only after informing that the complainant is taking steps for legal proceedings. The complainant had given in writing that the machine was repaired as per the request of the opposite party. But the machine was not in working condition even after its repair. The authorities of bank and the block Panchayath were also aware of the fact that the machine was defective. The 90% of outcome from the Palm dish machine were defective. So on 8.7.07 the complainant had issued notice to opposite party and its copy was issued also to the authorities of Gram a Panchayath, Block Panchayath and the Gramin Bank. But the opposite party had issued a notice stating unsustainable contentions. So the complainant had issued a registered lawyer notice to the opposite party and the opposite party issued a reply stating unsustainable contentions. The complainant had incurred Rs.1 ½ lakh for installing the unit. More over she had incurred more than Rs.50, 000/- as rent for building, current charge, working capital and interest. The complainant had suffered lot of mental as well as physical; hardship due to the deficient service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, the opposite party appeared and filed their version. The opposite party filed version admitting that the technical officer of opposite party had took class and he had explained the feature and peculiarities of the machine etc. The opposite party also admits that they had given training for 9membrs for 7 days and the trainees produced Palm dish from the machine in 3 minutes with prescribed size and measurements and the entire unit members of the complainant satisfied the functioning of the palm dish unit. The opposite party further denied the contention that the dish which was produced on inaugural day was shapeless dish. The opposite party admits that the complainant sent a letter dt.8.7.07 to the opposite party and the opposite party sent a detailed reply on16.7.07. The opposite party again contended that the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Since there is no cause of action within the jurisdiction of the Forum. The complainant had purchased machine from Thrissur and the DD drawn in favour of the opposite party is payable at Trichur and hence the entire transaction was completed from Trichur. The warranty of the machine is also over on 27.3.07. The opposite party always told to the complainant that 5 persons will get employment in a unit in which consists of 5 machine and he never represented that 10 persons will get the job. The opposite party sold the machine to the complainant on an assurance that the palm dish will be purchased by opposite party and the opposite party is even now ready to purchase the palm dish which is produced from the unit supplied by opposite party. The complainant had purchased the machineries only after satisfying the machinery. The complainant herself admitted that the palm dish produced at the time of training was well and good. The opposite party making review once in 3 months on all units which was given by them was serviced. On 22.3.07 the technician went to the unit to service the machine, but some members objected and before the incident, the technician of the opposite party give twice to the complainant and serviced this machines and the complainant had given full satisfaction to the opposite party also. According to opposite party, the other members objected to service the unit, since there was no complaint to the unit. The complainant produced the palm dish from the unit and supplied to opposite party and other private parties also and opposite party had given full amount for the plates supplied to him. The quality of plates produced by the complainant was well and good, there is no complaint also for palm dish produced by the complainant. If there is any defect, it may be due to the manhandling of the machine by the inexperienced people. The actual value of machine supplied by opposite party is only Rs.84, 385/-. The complainant is accountable to the public since she had spent Rs.165130/-to start the unit. The high expense was another reason for the disputes between the members of the Sangam. An amount of Rs.25, 000/- is enough and more to start a 5 machine unit apart from the cost of the machine. The complainant reported her complaint for the machine to the opposite party only on 8.7.07.The opposite party had attended the complaints of complainant in time and it is respectfully admitted that the opposite party had done all services free of cost. The complainant is trying to extract money from the opposite party. The opposite party is ready to cure the defect, if there is any defect in the unit even though the warranty period is over. The opposite party is in the field of making and supplying machineries for the last 40 years and he won several awards of state as well as National. The department of Industries and Commerce, Govt. of Kerala in its proceedings dt.7.2.08 has given sanction for setting up 10 units of palm dish units in Malappuram District. The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant, without any basis. The complainant purchased machine only for getting subsidy from the government of Kerala and the intention of the complainant is to extract the money from the government and hence the complaint against opposite party is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration:- 1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the case? 2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 4. Relief and cost. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs1 to 4 and DW1 and Exts.A1 to A12. Issue No.1 According to the opposite party, the Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint since there is no cause of action within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The subject mater of the complaint is the palm dish making machines. The opposite party contended that the complainant had taken delivery of the machine from the opposite party’s place at Thrissur after paying the price through DD. But complainant contended that the machine was installed by opposite party’s technician at the place of complainant. The PW2 deposed before the Forum that “sajn³ hm§m³ R§ÄXr-iq-cn t]mbn-«n-Ã. IT-]-\n-bpsS BÄ¡m³ sajo³ sImp-h¶p C³ÌmÄ sN¿p-I-bm-bn-cp-¶p. C³ÌmÄ sNbvX ]pXnb sajosâ hne FXnÀ I£n t\cn-«v_m-¦nÂ\n¶p ssI¸-äp-I-bm-bn-cp¶p. More over the opposite party admitted that their person has taken class at Kannur for the Members of the Kudumba Sree unit about the specialties and peculiarities of the machine. More over the opposite party admits that he has given training for 9 members of the unit of complainant from the complainant’s place. So the complainant came to know about the machine and it s function from Kannur. So from the above discussion it is seen that the cause of action for the complaint arises at Kannur and hence this Forum has ample jurisdiction to try the case and the complaint is maintainable before the Forum and issue No.1 is found infavour of the complainant. Issue Nos.2 to 4 The complainant’s case is that the Palm dish making machine was defective from its installation itself and the opposite party failed to cure its defects and there by the complainant caused so much loss , financial as well as physical and mental and in order to prove their case the complainant had produced ets.A1 to A12 such as project report, certificate of training, invoice, warranty, notice of inauguration, collie chit, application for loan, letter dt.8.7.07, reply dt.26.7.07, lawyer notice, reply notice and letter dt.6.2.07 and commission report. In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined as DW1. The opposite party admitted the purchase of the machine and its repair for two times, but he contended that there is no cause of action since the warranty for the machine is over on 27.3.07 and the complaint was filed on 19.4.08. The opposite party deposed that “DXvLm-S-\-¯n\p tij-T-l-c-Pn-¡mcn ]cmXn And-bn-¨n--«pv. And-bn-¨-t¸mÄ \¶m¡n sImSp-¯n-«p-v. More over Ext.A12 is dated 6.2.07, which was issued by opposite party to the complainant. In it, it is stated that “ \n§-fpsS IT-]vssfâv ]©m-b¯v saT-]À hnfn-¨p-]-dªp“. The complainant has a case that the machine became defective on the date of inauguration itself. From these it is seen that the machine became defective even before the expiry of warranty period. Even though the opposite party contended that the complainant had satisfied with the repair of opposite party and the same was given in writing to him, he had not produced any document. More over opposite party has another case that even though the technician had visited to the complainant’s firm in order to repair the machine, some of the members were not allowed him to repair it. He deposed before the Forum that 22.3.08 technician h¶-t¸mÄ bq\n-än-ep-f-f-hÀ dn¸-bÀ sN¿m³ k½-Xn-¨nà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-bm-Wv. ]cm-Xn-¡mcn k½-Xn-¨n-Ã. saT-]À amÀ k½-Xn-¨n-cp-¶p. A¶p dnt¸mÀ«v Fgp-Xn-bn-Ã, sSIv\o-j-y³amÀ Ft¶m-Sp-]-d-ª-Xm-Wv.“. But he has not produced any supporting document to prove this and he has no direct knowledge to this also. More over he again deposed that “warranty period  complaint In«n-bn-cp¶p“. Above all the opposite party admitted that the machine was defective and it became defective due to use of damaged palms. More over PW4, the Block Development Officer and PW3, the Manager of the bank deposed to the effect that the palm dishes obtained from the machine on the day of inauguration itself is defective. Above all the expert Commissioner inspect the machine and reported that it has the following defects i.e., Even though the dish forming is carried out properly, the dish is not separate out form the palm leaf. This is a serious defect so that they have to make some other way to separate the dish and all the five machines have the same problem. Punch and Die is not aligned properly, hence causing variation in die clearance and improper cutting. The bottom plate of the male die is not properly touching the bottom side of the palm dish while pressing the dies and in same machine there is no groove on the female die and according to the Commissioner, the defects are due to design defaults. So from the above discussion it is found that the supplied machines are defective and is shown deficiency on its day of inauguration itself. So we are of the opinion that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party by supplying defective machine and hence opposite party is liable to take back the machine after repaying the value as per Ext.A3 i.e. Rs.84, 375/- to the complainant along with Rs.2000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as cost of this complaint and issues 2to4 are also found in faovur of the complainant and order passed accordingly. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to take back the machine after re-paying Rs. 84,375/- (Rupees Eighty Four thousand Three hundred and seventy five only)along with Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) as compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member. APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Copy of the project report A2.Training certificate issued by OP A3.Copy of the bill issued by OP A4.Warranty card issued by OP A5.Notice of Inauguration of the unit A6.Copy of the rent kaichit A7.Copyofthe loan application form submitted before the Block Panchayth A8.Copyof the notice sent to OP A9.Reply letter sent by OP A10.Copty of the lawyer notice sent to OP A11.Reply notice A12.Letter dt.6.2.07issued by OP Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Exhibits for the court C1.Commisison report Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant PW2.DaisyJacob PW3.Abraham Thomas PW4.K.J.Thomas Witness examined for the opposite party DW1.Lonappan /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
