Date of Filing: Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
20.08.2010 27.08.2010 31.08.2015
COMPLAINANT Vs. OPPOSITE PARTY
Sri Ranjit Adhikary 1. Mr. S.R.Mohta
S/O. Sri Gobinda Adhikary Prop:Rajdeep Enterprises.
Prop: M/S. R/A Products,
P.O. Tribeni, P.S. Mogra 2. Rajdeep Enterprises
Dist. Hooghly 10, Clive Row(2nd floor)
Room No. 6/7
Kolkata 700001
P R E S E N T Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty - Member
Sri Nirmal Chandra Roy - Member
J U D G E M E N T
Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this case are re-capitulated as under :-
In epitome, the case of the Complaint, is that, the Complainant had purchased a FFS Machine for producing the packing of Sindur in small container for consideration amount of Rs. 2,08,000/- only as demanded by the Opposite Party by providing a quotation to the Complainant. Accordingly the Complainant had paid the entire consideration amount by a cheque on 03.02.2010 to the Opposite Party by taking a loan from the UCO Bank which was duly realized by the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party delivered the said FFS machine to the Complainant on 31.03.2010 after a long delay of two months from the specified time, for which the Complainant had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000/- only as interest to the Bank.
But after purchasing the same the said machine was disturbing and not running smoothly since its inauguration and the purpose of purchasing the machine was totally frustrated. The Complainant had failed to produce any product by using the said machine and failed to carry on his business. Moreover the Complainant also failed to pay the salary of his 5 employees whom he had employed for his business. The Complainant informed the matter to the Opposite Party on several occasions but the Opposite Party was very much reluctant to remove the said machine and/or to repair the same. The Complainant repeatedly requested the Opposite Part to repair the said machine but the Opposite Party refused to do the same, what amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party and caused mental agony and harassment to the Complainant for which he had asked for compensation. Hence, this case is filed for seeking adequate redressal before this Forum.
Resisting the Complaint, the Opposite Party filed Written Version for denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the Petition of Complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the instant case, the case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, is not maintainable and is barred by limitation.
The specific case of the Opposite Party as stated in the Written Version, in terse, is that, the Complainant was requested to send the sample roll of the containers which is necessary to deliver the said machine within the time but the Complainant failed to deliver the same in time as per the quotation. The Opposite Party was informed to deliver the said machine within 30.03.2010 and the same was delivered on the same day. The Opposite Party had delivered the said machine as per the terms and conditions of the quotation and in good and operable condition and after satisfaction level of the consumer. Thus the Opposite Party had denied any negligence or/ and deficiency in rendering service on their part and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Hence, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of this case.
Points for Determination
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.Ps ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons.
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
The main dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is that whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief against the Opposite Party as prayed for or not.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also critically perused all the material documents on record, though the Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party or the Opposite Party himself is found absent on calls on the day of the hearing argument.
On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocates of the Complainant, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is clearly evident that admittedly a FFS Machine was purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- only which was never denied by the Opposite Party.
The record reveals that the Complainant had purchased the said machine for producing the packing of Sindur in small container. The Complainant admitted the fact that he had purchased the said machine for his business purpose as the production of Sindur container was/is the business of the Complainant for which he had/has employed 5 employees who were his staffs for working at his business.
Thus the fact remains that the Complainant had/has purchased the said machine/product for producing the packing of Sindur container, the production of which is the business of the Complainant for which the Complainant is in need to employ 5 employees. So the Complainant purchased the said machine for commercial/business purpose not for his livelihood as the Complainant gave the employment of five persons. Thus the Complainant cannot be considered as a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Sec. 2(1)(d) of the ‘Consumer Protection Act’, 1986 and the Complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief from the Opposite Party as prayed for.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are inclined to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove his case and is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in negative.
In short, the Complainant deserves failure.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Let the copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
