Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The  complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019) on the allegations that he is running a small workshop at Gill Road, Moga and is manufacturing the farmers machinery tools, to earn his livelihood. Further contended that the complainant was in need of One Lathe Machine of 6 feet Eight Duty Semi-Norten Type and for this purpose, he contacted the Opposite Parties telephonically. At that time, the Manager Opposite Party No. 2 assured the complainant that they will send the aforesaid parts against advance payment and also assured that they will install the said machinery at their own expenses by visiting here at Moga and for this purpose, as per the dealing dated 22.09.2018, the complainant sent the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- vide different cheques or by NEFT transfer w.e.f. 26.9.2018 to 21.02.2019 to the Opposite Parties in their Current Account No.37462189123 maintained with State Bank of India. After receiving the advance amount of Rs.1,53,000/-, the Manager  namely Bunti  i.e.Opposite Party No. 2 came at Moga alongwith aforesaid machinery on 22.02.2019 and fitted the said machinery in the workshop of the complainant here at Moga. But firstly, the complainant stunned to note when the Opposite Parties delivered the bill of the machinery of Rs.97,940/- against the advance payment  of Rs.1,53,000/-  vide Invoice No. 81 dated 22.02.2019, copy of Invoice is Ex.C3 and at that time, said manager namely Bunti  of  Opposite Party No. 2 assured that  they will refund the excess amount to the complainant i.e. Rs.55,060/- alongwith interest very shortly and also gave the guarantee of the said parts of 5 years and also told that if the said machinery gives any problem within warranty period, they will refund whole of the amount. Said machinery was sent by Opposite Parties to the complainant workshop through Jeet Transport Service, copy of said receipt bearing No.4177 dated 22.02.2019. Further alleges that he was very surprised to note that within 3 days i.e. on 25.02.2019 from the date of its installation i.e. on 22.02.2019, the said machinery started giving problems. Not only this, the bolts fitted with the said machinery started broken,  snaps obtained of said machinery broken parts are placed on the file as Ex.C6 to Ex.C11. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties either the replace the aforesaid parts with new one or the refund its price alongwith refund of excess amount of Rs.55,060/-,  but initially, the Opposite Parties lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and now last week, flatly refused to admit the rightful claim of the complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties. Due to the aforesaid illegal, unwarranted and uncalled acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered great mental tension and harassment besides financial loss. Though the loss suffered by the complainant can not be compensated in the shape of money, but still the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental tension and harassment amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties to refund whole of the amount i.e. Rs.1,53,000/-  which they have received from the complainant on different dates as mentioned in statement of account.

b)      The amount of Rs.2,00,000/- be allowed to be paid by the opposite parties on account of compensation due to mental tension and harassment caused by the complainant.

c)       The cost of complaint amounting to Rs.20,000/- may please be allowed.

d)      And any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice and equity.       

Hence this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, none has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service,  hence Opposite Parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.05.2019 of this District Commission. 

3.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of ledger account Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of transport builty receipt Ex.C4, copy of e-way bill Ex.C5, copies of photographs Ex.C6 to Ex.C11 and closed his evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the  Complainant and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant is running a small workshop at Gill Road, Moga and is manufacturing the farmers machinery tools, to earn his livelihood. Further contended that  the  complainant was in need of One Lathe Machine of 6 feet Eight Duty Semi-Norten Type and for this purpose, he contacted the Opposite Parties telephonically. At that time, the Manager Opposite Party No. 2 assured the complainant that they will send the aforesaid parts against advance payment and also assured that they will install the said machinery at their own expenses by visiting here at Moga and for this purpose, as per the dealing dated 22.09.2018, the complainant sent the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- vide different cheques or by NEFT transfer w.e.f. 26.9.2018 to 21.02.2019 to the Opposite Parties in their Current Account No.37462189123 maintained with State Bank of India, the detail of the statement of account of the Opposite Parties is attached herewith as Ex.C2. After receiving the advance amount of Rs.1,53,000/-, the Manager  namely Bunti  i.e.Opposite Party No. 2 came at Moga alongwith aforesaid machinery on 22.02.2019 and fitted the said machinery in the workshop of the complainant here at Moga. But firstly, the complainant stunned to note when the Opposite Parties delivered the bill of the machinery of Rs.97,940/- against the advance payment  of Rs.1,53,000/-  vide Invoice No. 81 dated 22.02.2019, copy of Invoice is Ex.C3 and at that time, said manager namely Bunti  of  Opposite Party No. 2 assured that  they will refund the excess amount to the complainant i.e. Rs.55,060/- alongwith interest very shortly and also gave the guarantee of the said parts of 5 years and also told that if the said machinery gives any problem within warranty period, they will refund whole of the amount. Said machinery was sent by Opposite Parties to the complainant workshop through Jeet Transport Service, copy of said receipt bearing No.4177 dated 22.02.2019 is Ex.C4, copy of the E-way bill is Ex.C5. It was the case of the complainant that   within 3 days i.e. on 25.02.2019 from the date of its installation i.e. on 22.02.2019, the said machinery started giving problems. Not only this, the bolts fitted with the said machinery started broken,  snaps obtained of said machinery broken parts are placed on the file as Ex.C6 to Ex.C11. Thereafter, the  complainant made so many requests to the Opposite Parties either the replace the aforesaid parts with new one or the refund its price alongwith refund of excess amount of Rs.55,060/-,  but to no affect and the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

6.       It is not disputed that for the purchase of the machinery,  the complainant sent the advance payment  of Rs.1,53,000/- to the Opposite Parties from Moga through cheque or through NEFT to the Current Account of Opposite Parties bearing account No. 37462189123 of State Bank of India, on different dates i.e. w.e.f. 26.9.2018 till 21.02.2019 and against this, the Opposite Parties delivered the bill of the machinery of Rs.97,940/- against the advance payment  of Rs.1,53,000/-  vide Invoice No. 81 dated 22.02.2019, copy of Invoice is Ex.C3 and in this way, the Opposite Parties took excess amount of Rs.55,060/- from the complainant.  To corroborate his aforesaid assertion, the Complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copy of ledger account Ex.C2, copy of bill Ex.C3, copy of transport builty receipt Ex.C4, copy of e-way bill Ex.C5, copies of photographs Ex.C6 to Ex.C11.  The aforesaid evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence on record as  the Opposite Parties,  despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings.  In this way, the Opposite Parties have impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Parties have no defence to offer or defend the complaint.

7.       With regard to territorial jurisdiction of this District Consumer Commission,  first of all,  the complainant has a permanent place of residence here at Gill Road, House No.643, Nanak Nagri, Moga, District Moga (Punjab) and as per section 34 (1)(d) of the new Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the consumer can file a complaint for the redressal of his grievance, where he resides or personally works for gain, hence this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, at Moga has got jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. Furthermore, on the same facts and circumstances, recently Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in Revision Petition No. 32 of 2017 (Against the Order dated 22/09/2016 in Appeal No. 424/2015 of the State Commission Punjab) titled as  Rajiv Sharma Vs. Dr.Sanjay Garg,  decided on 19.01.2017 by Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.K.Jain, President, the relevant portion is reproduced as under:-

“This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 22.09.2016, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No.424 of 2015, affirming the order dated 09.03.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bathinda (for short “the District Forum”) in MA in CC No.157 of 19.02.2014.  By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the Application filed by the Petitioner herein, questioning its Territorial Jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint.  In the Application, it was pleaded that since the Petitioner was neither residing nor carrying on any business nor had any branch office at Bathinda, where the machine in question, alleged to be defective had been installed, no cause of action had accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum at Bathinda.

Having heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is utterly misconceived and has been filed with the sole object of delaying the disposal of the Complaint on merits.

It is trite law that although the expression “cause of action” is not defined in the Act, it is of wide import.  Generally the said expression is described as ‘bundle of facts’ which the Petitioner must prove, if traversed, to entitle it to the relief prayed for.  (See:  Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 711 and Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640).

Tested on the touchstone of the stated principle, we are unable to hold that in the instant case, not even a part of “cause of action” had arisen at Bathinda.  Admittedly, the machine in question was to be delivered and installed by the Opposite Party at the premises of the Complainant, located in Bathinda.  That being so, unless the machine was installed and made operational, it would not have been possible to test and evaluate its performance and to see whether the same was free from defect, as defined in Section 2 (1) (f) of the Act.  Hence, in our view, at least a part of “cause of action” did arise within the territorial Jurisdiction of District Forum at Bathinda.  

In view of the above, the Revision Petition fails and is dismissed in limine.”

8.       So, from the entire unrebutted and unchallenged  evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that  the Opposite Parties have adopted unfair trade practice, because against the receipt of advance payment  of Rs.1,53,000/- to the Opposite Parties from Moga through cheque or transferred through NEFT to the Current Account of Opposite Parties bearing account No. 37462189123 of State Bank of India, on different dates i.e. w.e.f. 26.9.2018 till 21.02.2019, the  Opposite Parties delivered the bill of the machinery of Rs.97,940/- vide Invoice No. 81 dated 22.02.2019 and as such, the Opposite Parties took excess amount of Rs.55,060/- from the complainant.

9.       Further with regard to selling of defective parts of the machinery  by the Opposite Parties or its machinery giving staring problem or problem regarding bolt fitting of the mechanic of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has not produced any cogent or convincing evidence and we decline the said prayer for replacement of said machinery with new one. Further contention of the complainant that due to the aforesaid  illegal, unwarranted and uncalled acts of the Opposite Parties, the complainant suffered great mental tension and harassment besides financial loss and claimed Rs.2 lakhs on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment, but we are of the view that the  claim for compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs, appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The rationale behind grant of compensation has been to compensate a party of the loss occasioned by it. It is none of the intention of the legislature while legislating the Consumer Protection Act to enrich a particular party at the cost of the other. The compensation has to be awarded in commensuration with the loss occasioned to the complainant. In our considered view, ends of justice would  be met if the complainant is awarded lump-sum compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and we award the same accordingly.

10.     In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.55,060/- (Rupees fifty five thousands and sixty only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 26.03.2019 till its actual realization.  The Opposite Parties are also  directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only)  as lumpsum compensation to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to  get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission.   Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.  

11.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not  appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated: 21.12.2021.