Orissa

Cuttak

CC/49/2022

Kulamani Maharana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Bharat Machine - Opp.Party(s)

N S Panda

01 May 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.49/2022

   Kulamani Maharana,

   S/O:Late Bhima Maharana,

   At: Plot No.5F/656,

   CDA,Sector-9,(Near Ganesh Palace),

   P.S:Markat Nagar,Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753014.                       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1. Managing Director,Bharat Machine,

I-I SIDO,Industrial Estate,Unit-II,

Than Jakur Road,Machuvali,

            Pudukotta-622004,Tamilnadu

 

2.  Branch Manager, Bharat Machine,

Plot No.1699,Indira Palace,2^nd Floor,Patia Station Road,

               Kalarahunga,Patia,Bhubaneswar

                  Dist-Khurda.

 

3. Senior Executive,

Bharat Machine,

Plot No.1699,Indira Palace,2^nd Floor,Patia Station Road,

                 Kalarahunga,Patia,Bhubaneswar

                  Dist-Khurda.

 

4. Service Manager, Mharat Machine,

Plot No.1699,Indira Palace,2^nd Floor,Patia Station Road,

                 Kalarahunga,Patia,Bhubaneswar

                  Dist-Khurda.                                                                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    04.04.2022

Date of Order:  01.05.2023

 

For the complainant:                   Mr. Nira Sundar Panda,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.      :                  Mr. R.K.Satpathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                                

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that for his self-employment and maintenance of his family he had purchased a paper cup machine from the O.Ps on 22.3.21 for a sum of Rs.7,14,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs.2,00,000/- cash on 19.3.2021, further Rs.1,60,000/- in cash on 20.3.21 and on 22.8.21 the complainant had enabled bank transfer to the O.Ps for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/-.  Thus, in toto the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7,14,000/- to the O.Ps.  The machine was delivered on 22.3.21 but it is urged by the complainant that the machine had some problem/manufacturing defect for which it was not functioning well.  He had raised complaint to this effect to the local Branch Manager as well as to the Head Office of the O.Ps.  The complainant had taken hand-loan to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- with monthly interest @ 12% for purchasing the machine.  The technician of the O.Ps though had visited the house of the complainant on 1.7.21, the defects could not be rectified for which the complainant after issuance of notice had filed this case against the O.Ps seeking repair of the said paper-cup machine or in the alternative to get refund of the amount as paid by him to the tune of Rs.7,14,000/- alongwith interest within a stipulated period.  The complainant has also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his mental agony and loss and has further prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.

In order to justify his case, the complainant has filed copies of several money receipts and documents alongwith his complaint petition. 

2.       Initially the complainant had arrayed four O.Ps but subsequently by virtue of his memo O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 were deleted and thus it is only O.P no.1 who is the sole O.P and he has contested this case and has filed his written version.

          According to the written version of the said O.P, the complainant has no cause of action to file this case, his case is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed.   He admits about the complainant purchasing the paper cup machine but alleges that his service staff had reported him on 2.5.21 that the pooling hook iron road was bend which was due to wrong operation of the machine by incompetent person.  Thus, it is claimed by the O.P no.1 through his written version that in no way he is liable in this case as alleged by the complainant and rather, he has urged for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

          O.P no.1 has also filed several copies of documents in order to prove his stand.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P no.3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P no.1 ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

Issue no.ii.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue in this case, is taken up  first for consideration here.

After going through all the documents available in the case record together with the averments as made in the complaint petition and the written version, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased a paper-cup machine from the O.P no.1 by paying a sum of Rs.7,14,000/-.  The said machine was delivered on 22.3.21 and installed at the premises of the complainant.  Quite interestingly, by 1.7.21 the machine was found not to be to be showing some defects.  In this context, it is the plea of the O.P no.1 that he was reported by his servicemen that the pooling hook iron road was found to be bend which was due to wrong operation by incompetent person.  It is for this, the machine was not functioning properly and as such O.P no.1 had blamed the complainant for the said reason.  As it appears from the case, the complainant with a noble intention in order to earn his livelihood and maintain his family had incurred loan and had purchased the said paper-cup machine.  It can never be said here that the complainant had a malafide intention in causing bend to the pooling hook iron rod of the said machine and thereby causing loss to ohimself.  The plea  taken by the O.P  is that incompetent person had handled the machine for which due to wrong operation there was fault noticed in the said paper-cup machine.  Be that as it may, O.P  has nowhere in this case established to apprise this Commission that if it was necessary for a competent personnel to handle the said paper-cup machine and if the said fact was made aware to the complainant while the machine was being sold to him and also when it was installed.  Thus, the vague plea of incompetent person handling the paper cup machine wrongly:  as taken by the O.P no.1 in this case do not suffice.  Moreso, as it appears at the special remarks column of one of the service cards, the person inspecting the machine had observed that there was leakage in oil cane for which it was not working properly.  The complainant in one of its service request forms has made several complaints regarding the non-availability of the spare parts, non-attendance of the service personnels, non-rectification of the machine.  The complainant of course has taken the plea of manufacturing defect but has not substantiated such plea by making inspection of the said paper-cup machine by any expert in order to establish such claim of manufacturing defect.  Now, when the machine as purchased by the complainant went wrong within a short span of it’s purchase which involved a huge amount of money that which was paid by the complainant to the O.P and the same defect could not be rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant, the complainant had to approach this Commission seeking redress.  Thus, after considerate examination from all corners, this Commission is of a view that infact there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps by not rectifying the paper cup machine as purchased by the complainant within a reasonable time for which the complainant had to sustain loss and suffer mental agony.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and he is definitely entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him to a reasonable extent.

                                              ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is thus directed to repair the said paper-cup machine of the complainant forthwith without asking for any charge or in the alternative to refund him the cost of the paper cup machine of Rs.7,14,000/- .  The O.P is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for causing him mental agony as well as a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation expenses of the complainant.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of May,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                        Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                  President

 

 

                                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                         Member