4. The complainant has further alleged that the OP Vendor's Engineer was deputed to visit his site on 30.11.2021 in response to his written request/complaint but they could not synchronize the table rotation in line with the VMC machine and another Engineer visited on 08.12.2021 but even he could not resolve the technical knot during his 3-day stay at the machine site. The situation continued and the OP vendor did neither replace the machine nor get it set right to its working-order. The complainant continued to suffer huge losses estimated to be @ Rs.16,000/- per day besides physical as well as mental torture and as a result he had to be hospitalized for hypertension and anxiety etc. Legal Notice dated 12.01.2022 was also got served upon the OP Vendor demanding replacement of machine besides a compensation on account of loss of business etc., but even that failed to move the OP Vendor and thus prompted the present complaint seeking directives to the OP vendor to replace the defective-machine besides to pay Rs.17.50 Lac as compensation to cover the loss of business along with Rs.1.0 Lac for having caused physical/mental harassment and another Rs.1.0 Lac as litigation expenses.
5. The complainant, in order to support and strengthen his complaint has filed his self attested deposition (Ex.CW1/A) along with I) Ex.C1 Invoice dated 24.08.2021 Rs.719,800/- II) Ex.C2 Installation Report (Unsigned) dated 16.09.2021; III) Ex.C3 Copies of e-mails and whats-app messages exchanged between the parties pertaining to problematic M/c; IV) Ex.C4 Legal Notice e-mail 12.01.2022; V) Ex.C5 e-mail Reply 12.01.2022 Legal Notice; VI) Ex.C6 Bank Certificate 18.04.2022 Bank Loan of Rs.23.75 Lac; VII) Ex.C7 Rent Note; VIII) Ex.C8 Rent Receipt Rs.5,000/- PM w.e.f. 21.06.2021; IX) Ex.C9 Certificate PMEGP Trg; X) Ex.C10 Copy Bank Loan A/c Statement; XI) Ex.C11 Copy Bank Loan Sanction. Besides, the complainant has also filed Rejoinder rebutting therein the objections as raised in the written statement and also the written arguments briefing the complainant's grievances.
6. Upon notice/summoning by the commission, the opposite party Vendors appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply comprising of the preliminary as well other (on-merit) objections that are summarized hereunder so as to retain the original fidelity to the extent possible (feasible) as:
Preliminary Objections:
1. That the complaint is not maintainable against the OP vendors;
2. That the complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands and has filed the false and frivolous complaint with an ulterior motive of delaying the repayment of the Bank Loan;
3. That all the averments and allegations as set out in the complaint are false and devoid of merit and liable to be rejected and need be put to strict proof except those admitted here-within the reply;
4. That the OP vendors have highlighted their competitive achievements and performances since inception of its business, in the year 2014.
5. That the OP vendors have herein highlighted the high quality product as manufactured by the DETRON and being marketed throughout the Globe and preferred by the leading machine tool manufacturers around the world
Para-wise (ON Merits) Objections:
1. 1.Ref Para 1. No comments by the OP as the complainant need to himself prove his own alleged averments;
2. 2.Ref Para 2 & 3. The Machine DETRON Make Rotary Table with Support Table, Servo Motor and Drive were supplied as per the quotation dated 23.06.2021 along with indigenous-designed production system qua CAD (Computer Aided Drawing) based system as got approved by the complainant in August' 2021 and installed successfully on 16.09.2021 with report delivered to the firm.
3. 3. Ref Para 4. The OP Vendor has denied all the allegations addressing these as false and fabricated. The complaint was received first on 21.11.2021 & written complaint on 28.11.2021 after > 60 days of successful installation 16.09.2021 giving rise to apprehension of improper use/ accident etc.However, the OP Engineer(s) found during call-visit(s) at the Machine Site on 30.11.2021 & 08.12.2021 that the project was in its initial production-stage sans know-how technology as the basic CNC (VHM) machine could have run for production even without the CNC Rotary Table to meet the urgent orders as such the complainant's allegations are false and unsustainable.
4. 4. Ref Para 5. The OP Engineers found that the main complaint has been that of difference in heights of the Rotary Table and the Support Table as the Run-out and the Face-out variances have been within the prescribed tolerance limits. As per the DETRON Inspection the difference in the center-heights of the two ( Rotary & Support Tables) has been to the tune of 0.001 mm.
5. 5. Ref Para 6. As the complainant has been bent upon 'replacement' of the M/cs the OP agreed to take these back for inspection, trouble-shooting, and also replacement, if found requisite. However, the complainant refused to go by the said arrangement and wanted the 'replacement' first at his site. In fact, he was not interested to solve the problem but to extract money from the OP and hence has not approached the commission with clean hands.
6. 6. Ref Para 7 & 8. The OP has denied the contents of the complaint as there's been no deficiency in service on their part. The OP engineers had stayed at the machine-site for (7+3=10) 10 days but the complainant had not allowed the OP to resolve the issue/ problem.
7. 7. Ref Para 9 to 12. The OP has denied all the averments as the complainant needs to prove his documents.
8. 8. Ref Para 13. As per the OP the Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate and put the present complaint (sans cause of action) on trial.
9. 9. & 10. The OP are ready to rectify the defect but for that the machine unit needs to be sent back to their work-place. However, the OP as a gesture of satisfactory customer service undertake to replace the said machine-unit. The OP vendors have addressed the complaint's Prayer Clause as wrong and incorrect and have specifically denied the same as the complainant had refused first to accept the engineers' directives to resolve the situation.
7. And, lastly the OP vendors have sought dismissal of the present complaint with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice; and have also filed in support an affidavit duly stamped and attested (Ex.OPW1/A) of their Managing Partner cum Authorized Signatory Sh. A. Vimal Kumar, along with their written arguments/
submissions.
8. We have carefully examined the documents/evidence produced on record (along with the scale and scope of ‘adverse inference’ for those ignored to be produced) in order to determine the respective ‘claims’ as pleaded forth by the opposing litigants in the light of the arguments as advanced by their respective learned counsels representing the two respective sides. We have also gone through somewhat, a little of related literature on the technical-terms CNC, VMC and HMC etc., subjects of Machining, Milling/Drilling/Threading and hand-tools, bench-tools, small and medium sized common mechanical machines like Mechanized Drills, Lathes, Shapers, Planers and also somewhat sophisticated machines like CNC (VMC/ HMC) and Rotary Table/Support Table for enhanced production management.
9. We observe that the herein OP Vendors have failed to produce any evidence of having procured technical consultation and/or assistance of an expert/precision-mechanical/engineer/
consultant to resolve the knot and approve the selected plant along with chosen machinery and also the CAD (Computer Aided Drawings) for the indigenous assembly for which the OP claim to have taken the complainant's approval. We observe that the OP being the supplier of such sophisticated modern machinery had that level of technical expertise did have approach/contact with that sort of technical expertise and it's been their responsibility to have arranged expert technical advice as to the suitability of the M/c 4th Axis Rotary Table to be joined/ fitted to the 2.5th/ 3rd Axis CNC (VMC) M/c through the one CAD based indigenous assembly. Further, the OP have been silent on the aspect of 0.001 MM height difference between the two tables as to it has been within the tolerance limit like the other two specifications and these will not affect the 'threading' and/or grooving of the Vises, as the finished products.
10. Somehow, the OP vendor has not produced even the affidavits of its own engineers as to prove its claim that the Rotary and the Supporting Tables were successfully installed at Site and the trial production of vices/vises has been successfully launched.
We say it as going by the literature for the 4th Axis operations HMC are preferred to VMC M/cs (but these are used by small units on cost considerations) and assembling the VMC with the one 4th Axis Rotary Platform may require one perfect expertise for precision assembling.
11. We further observe that there have been many such similar anomalies on the part of the OP vendors that exhibit an employ of unfair trade practices and deficiency in service on their part and their offer to replace the machinery amounts to 'admission' of presence of inherent defects in the M/c unit and/or in the CAD based indigenous assembly. What the OP vendors could have done in the least would have been to get the CAD design's suitability for the 4th Axis Rotary Table with the 2½th/ 3rd Axis VMC and others alike checked/ approved from the one Precision-Mechanical Engineering Expert Consultant and then have supplied/installed the unit at site to their own satisfaction to over-rule any dispute of whatsoever. Presently, the OP vendors have been placed on the adverse side of the applicable statute and will be warranted to appropriately undo the civil wrong done towards the complainant.
12. Lastly, we observe that the complainant has not produced his project report and/or some other similar document vide which his actual loss could have been assessed. It shall be pertinent here to mention that compensation is awarded for actual-loss incurred and/or for the anticipated loss based on sound and supported figures as somewhat guidance and/ or assistance can certainly be had towards assessment of the same. Further, the OP claim that the VMC can be operated without the Rotary Table has also not been contested in the related rejoinder. We do observe that the complainant has suffered financial-loss as well as physical harassment, mental agony etc on account of the supply of the inappropriate Rotary Table and its malfunctioning etc but in the absence of appropriate presentation coupled with absence of some cogent evidence, financial-loss cannot be compensated, in totality. An expert comment was also very much desired as to whether the difference of 0.001 MM in the heights of the two Tables (Rotary and Supporting) can affect quality of grooves/threads and dimensions of the thread cutting outside 'cylindrical-screw' and inside the 'hollow-cylinder' the two major moving/functioning part(s) of the 'VICE' or 'VISE' the finished-product of the complainant's plant.
13. We being governed by the Majesty of Law and guided by the Law of Moderation are inclined to follow a somewhat lenient but firm and above all a judicious mid-way towards an appropriate resolve under the herein applicable statute.
14. In the light of the all above, we find and are of the considered opinion that the OP vendors have indeed exhibited an employ of unfair trade practices coupled with an open display of deficiency in service on their part and, thus accordingly, we partly allow this complaint and ORDER the OP Vendors to replace and install the DETRON Make Rotary Table at the complainant's site within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of these orders, otherwise they shall refund the invoice amount, in full, to the complainant of the Rotary Platform with interest @ 9% PA w.e.f. the date of invoice till actual payment. The OP Vendors are further ordered to pay a lumpusum amount of Rs.10 Lacs (i.e., approximately 50% of the compensation claimed amount) as compensation for having inflicted physical harassment cum mental agony upon the complainant through employ of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part explicitly exhibited during the present transaction. The parties shall themselves bear the costs of the present litigation.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
16. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (R.S.Sukhija)
OCT. 12, 2022. Member.
YP.
