Hon'ble Mr. Subhas Ch. Guin, Member.

The gist of the complain as culled out from the case record  is that one Mr. Animesh Roy who runs a small computer printing machine to earn his bread and butter, had decided to set up a small paper bag making machine by taking loan from the bank. He found by searching internet that M/S Precitech Industries, Ahmedabad (O.P-2) wherein Mr. Chiragkumar Rammikbhai Patel, (O.P.-1), the proprietor of the abovesaid Company was dealing in supply and maintainance of such type of machine. Then he contacted the O.P.-1  and discussed about price and installation of the said machine and ultimately went to Ahmedabad on 15.10.2019 along with his friend by flight to finalise the deal after getting assurance from the O.P.-1. Discussions were held between the Complainant and the O.P.-1 and it was settled that Ops would supply the machine with necessary spare parts at the doorstep of the Complainant and install the same at the premises of the Complainant with a cost of Rs. 12,03,600/- including GST which had to be paid in advance but cost for transit of the machine would be borne by Ops. Then the Complainant paid Rs. 1,42,600/- in cash as advance to the O.P.-1 Company to raise invoice in favour of him and left Ahmedabad on 17.10.2019 by flight. He also paid Rs. 11,000/- on 16.10.2019 and Rs. 90,000/- on 23.10.2019 to the O.P.-1 through Google Pay as per terms and conditions of the settlement. Considering the total price of the machine and amount to be paid he applied for a bank loan for Rs. 9,60,000/- from State Bank of India, Khagrabari Branch, Cooch Behar which was sanctioned on 10.12.2019. Again on 12.12.2019 the Complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 9,60,000/- to the OP’s Account through NEFT, thereby completed the payment of total price of the machine as settled between them.

Thereafter OPs raised one pro forma invoice dated 12.12.2020 of Rs. 12,03,600/- in favour of the Complainant and assured him that he would receive the said machine within 15 days through Vinayaka Trans Solution Carrier. OPs also sent E-way Bill dated 10.01.2020 to the Complainant. On receipt of the machine the Complainant requested the OPs to send their Service Engineer/technician to install the same and to make production out of that machine. After repeated requests, OPs sent their Engineers to install and start production of the machine but they could not succeed to make production and left Cooch Behar with an assurance of sending another team to start production. The matter of non functioning of the machine was intimated to the OPs and they assured the Complainant for a permanent solution of the defect and to replace the machine if required free of cost, free service facility and warranty/guarantee.

Again after repeated reminders and requests OPs sent another engineer/expert but this time also he could not succeed and left the place with same assurance of sending another team. All expenditures relating to food, lodging and fare of transport of the team of engineer/expert was borne by the Complainant.

Thereafter the Complainant contacted the OPs over phone or WhatsApp to find out a remedy of this defect but they did not respond to this type of call nor did they send any team of engineer nor did they replace the defective machine with new one which was within the terms and conditions of the purchase nor did they refund the price of the machine. Thus the machine was lying idle without any production which caused the Complainant a huge loss as he took loan from the bank and was repaying the loan with interest and at the same time his earning from the said machine was totally hampered.

Finding no other alternative the Complainant served a legal notice through his Ld. Lawyer to the O.P.-1 on 25.01.2020 through Speed Post. Despite this notice OPs remained silent which prompted the Complainant to file this instant case for redressal of his grievances. He prayed for a direction to the OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs. 12,03,600/- wih statutory interest therein @ 10.25% p.a, Rs. 15,709/- towards fare of flight (to and from), Rs. 1,800/- towards cost of Hotel expenditure by the Complainant in Ahmedabad, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony,  Rs. 1,00,000/- towards unfair trade practices and Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of proceedings.

Summons were served upon the OPs but they did not turn up to contest the case. So the case was heard ex-parte against the OPs.

Decision with reasons

The Complainant Mr. Animesh Roy, a small businessman wanted growth in his business for which he installed a paper bag making machine that he purchased from Mr. Chiragkumar Rammikbhai Patel, (O.P.-1) the proprietor of the abovesaid Company (O.P.-2) with a cost of Rs. 12,03,600/- including GST. But as per settlement between the OPs and the Complainant, service engineer/experts of the OP Company tried their best to install and make production from the said machine but they could not succeed in doing so. OPs also assured the Complainant verbally to make the machine defect free and replace the same with new one if required free of cost with free service facility and warranty. But after two abortive attempts to make the machine defect free Ops did not respond to phone calls or Whatsapp message of the Complainant. Even a legal notice served upon OPs did not receive any positive response from them which prompted the Complainant to file this instant case. Summons were served upon the Ops but they did not turn up at the Commission to contest the case. So the case was heard ex-parte against the OPs.

On the other hand, the Complainant in order to establish his claim adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit and some documents before the Commission.

Perused the pleadings of the Complainant and the documents in the case record. Heard the argument advanced by Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.

The OPs did not controvert the allegation of the Complainant in his complaint petition since the OPs preferred not to contest the case and did not file any written version.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions it is evident that OPs supplied a defective machine to the Complainant and they neither replaced the machine nor did they refund the price of the machine to him which proved the unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The abovesaid act of OPs caused the Complainant suffering from mental pain and agony. So the Complainant is entitled to get relief prayed for.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the Complaint Case No. CC/46/2020 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OPs. The OPs are directed to refund to the Complainant Rs.12,03,600/- with interest @ 6% p.a from 12.12.2019 and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs.50,000/- towards unfair trade practice and  Rs.10,000/- towards cost of proceedings within one month from passing the order failing which the awarded sum shall carry an interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing order till the date of realization.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by post forthwith, free of cost for information and necessary action, if any.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.