Present         (1)    Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                     President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : - 17.07.2015

                    Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To pay the sum insured i.e. Rs. 5,00,000/- ( Rupees Five Lakh only ) with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this case till full and final payment.
2. To pay Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Three Lac only ) as Compensation for inconvenience harassment and mental tension.
3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) as litigation cost.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant namely Parmanand Singh is a proprietor of M/s Hans Baba Oil Mills, Gandhi Nagar, Kanti Factory Road, near at Shiv Mandir, Patna 20, who purchased oil packing machine and cylinder amounting to Rs. 5,30,400/- ( Rs. Five Lac Thirty Thousand Four Hundred only ) from opposite party namely Dhairya Kumar “ Dheeraj ” proprietor of M/s Dynamic Indian Packagings Sumitra Devi Path, Maruti care, East Kidwaipuri, near Income Tax, Patna 1 on 02.09.2008 ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
2. The complainant paid the opposite party total amount by cheque of S.B.I. J.C. Road Branch, Patna Rs. 4,65,000/- ( Rs. Four Lac Sixty Five Thousand only ) on 06.09.2008 and by cash Rs. 65,400/- ( Rs. Sixty Five Thousand Four Hundred only ) ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
3. The complainant started a Mustered Oil Manufacturing Mill for commercial purpose. His desire was to supply in the market packet of 50 ml, 100 ml, 200ml, 500ml and 1 ltr mustered oil. In the mean time he met with Dhairya Kumar “ Dheeraj ” who is the proprietor of M/s Dynamic Indian Packaging.
4. The complainant visited the factory of opposite party and talked to him. The opposite party convinced him and also demonstrated the function of machine.
5. The complainant took a quotation of packing machine for bank loan on 13.09.2007, applied for Bank loan after making a project. His application for loan was accepted by S.B.I., J.C. Road, Patna on 08.08.2008 and agreement between them.
6. On 27.08.2009, S.B.I. demanded fresh quotation of packing machine from the machine supplier and on 30.08.2008 bank order for supplying the machine which was delivered on 02.09.2008.
7. The opposite party delivered him two machine. On for packing of 50ml, 100ml and 200ml and other for ½ ltr and 1 ltr. He also delivered him 2 cylinders, although he ordered for 5 cylinder.
8. The complainant also ordered for printing 1000 pouches of 50ml and 100ml.
9. The complainant started the machine but it was found defective. Oil was leaking when it was packed. When he approached experts, they said that it is defective machine and packing of 50ml and 100 ml will be not packed by this machine.
10. The complainant further said that he again tried and supplied packed oil by that machine but it were rejected by market due to leakage.
11. The complainant consulted with opposite party and expressed every thing about that defective machine but he said that it is a normal problem and it will be defective free very soon. But it was not improved. The complainant had already written a letter on 16.01.2009 to the opposite party about the problem. ( Vide Annexure 3 )
12. The complainant said that on 25.04.2009 the opposite party changed the machine. But the problem was still in the machine. The complainant tried for ½ ltr and 1 ltr pouch but he did not succeeded. In fact the machine which was given by opposite party was completely ………………….. .
13. The complainant further said that the opposite party also taken the money for 5 cylinders but he gave only two cylinders. He had already written a letter, but opposite party made delay and could not deliver at appropriate time. ( Vide Annexure – 4 )
14. The complainant was fed up from that machine, he tested the machine with the pouch of other unit but he was not satisfied. Due to this defective, he suffered huge loss and mental agony.
15. The complainant consulted with the opposite party and explained all problem regarding machine and cylinder. The opposite party threatened him said that he will not change the machine nor repair it.
16. After some days the complainant send a letter to the opposite party for redressal of his grievances but opposite party did not respond. ( Vide Annexure 5 )
17. The complainant also send him a legal notice dated 18.07.2009 and said that give explanation within 10 days otherwise he will take legal action. ( Vide Annexure – 6 )
18. It is relevant to mention that the opposite party has acted in most negligent manner while dealing with the complaint of the complainant and suffered huge financial loss.
19. The complainant left with no other alternative then to approach this forum to get the grievances, redressal as consumer is unduly being harassment by sellers.
20. As per oral direction of the learned forum the present supplementary counter affidavit is being filed.

3. The Opposite Party in the Written Statement has submitted as follows :-

1. Opposite party in the complaint case and as such the opposite party is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The opposite party delivered machine in good conditions and properly checked by his experienced engineer as on 02.09.2008 and give Bill No. 8 by complaint in with complainant signed and statement receiving on said bill. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
3. After one year dated 18.08.2009 complainant sent pleader notice by his advocate, in which stated that machine did not started then opposite party given reply to notice appropriate compensation rejected. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
4. The business of complainant flopped due to his illegal business dealing because complainant is duplicator of Scooter Brand, M/s Deepak Vage product Pvt. Limited and industrial are Itnama Road Alwar 301001 Rajasthan it is stated in pleader notice also. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
5. The complainant firstly started production of Mustered oil Hans Jauti Brand pay due to not marketable complainant suffered loss and after six months complainant started duplicate of Scooter Brand and requested to opposite party for duplicacy but opposite party not accepted to involve in his illegal business then complains come in this Forum for compensation.
6. The opposite party’s company policy is first checked the machine then deliver to purchaser in the said dispute opposite party also first checked machine then delivered to complainant.
7. The complainant stated in his complaint the electric bill shows 49,500/- it cannot be without run machine, than means complainant machine worked eleven month. So consumed electric power.
8. The complainant stated in his complaint petition about labour expenses Rs. 2,86,000. It is also cleared that machine worked.
9. It is clear that when complainant guarantor period end after they issued notice to the opposite party.
10. The opposite party manufacturing of machine in Bihar about 6 year but not any claim about his manufacturing only this complainant is complaining about opposite party machine.
11. The opposite party is ready to inquiry of machine whether it is good condition or not.
12. The opposite party get good will of his manufacturing of packing machine not in Bihar only bust all over India and not get any complaint about his machine.
13. The allegation against opposite party is baseless, frivolous, unjust, improper and bad in the eye of law. So such complaint petition deserve to dismissed by this court.
14. It is clear under the above facts and circumstances that here are no latches or negligence on the part at opposite party as such the claim of the complainant cannot sustained the complaint petition is fit to be dismissed.

We have gone through the entire record and have heard the parties.

What has strikes us most is that the complainant has failed to place on record any chit of paper from which it can be proved that there was any Guarantee/ warranty on the machine and in absence of the same we did not find it proper to pass any order giving relief to the complainant and in this way it can safely be constructed that the machine was purchased by the complainant with full knowledge that the same was having no warranty or Guarantee.

Under the circumstance the complainant has failed to prove deficiency on the part of opposite party and as such this complaint petition is dismissed but without any costs.

                                        Member                                                                                        President