Date of Filing      : 06.03.2020

                                                                                                                            Date of Disposal: 13.07.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                       .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU. J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A, B.L.                                                                 ..… MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com.                                                                           ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.20/2020

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 13th DAY OF JULY 2022

 

Mr.M.Alaguvel, S/o.Muthiah,

proprietor,

M/s.Thiruvel Pressings, 

No.563, M.T.H.Road, Sidco Industrial Estate, 

Ambattur, Chennai.                                                                            ……Complainant.

 

                                                 //Vs//

Mr.Dhanajay Bala,

Chief Executive Officer,

M/s.Machines Centre,

No.15/38, Balaji Nagar,

2nd Cross Street, padi, Chennai.                                                ..........Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                   :   M/s.Y.Kerisshnan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                               :   Mr.G.V.SureshKumar, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 30.06.2022 in the presence of M/s.Y.Kerisshnan Advocate, counsel for the complainant  and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in selling defective machine seeking direction to direct the opposite party to repay Rs.16,590/- towards the cost of the machine with interest at the rate of 24% per annum till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the mental torture and harassment suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party with 12% interest for the amount awarded 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It is the case of the complainant that he was running a registered proprietary concern under MSME bearing Registration UAM No.TN02A0012017 namely M/s.Thiruvel Pressings for more than 9 years and has an experience for about 35 years and he was doing business in the field of Press Tools, Sheet Metal, components and engaged in all kind of engineering works.  The complainant was regular customer with the opposite party’s shop for more than six years and had purchased Tapping Machine for a sum of Rs.16950/- vide invoice dated 14.08.2019 and other machines from the opposite party.  When the new Tapping machine was used by the complainant it started functioning with an unusual and over sound compared to the normal machine and the same was immediately informed by the complainant to the opposite party.  The opposite party responding to the complainant’s grievance immediately sent a Mechanical expert for inspecting the machine who inspected the machine and informed the complainant that he will revert back after getting instructions from the opposite party.  The complainant on request by the opposite party took the new Tapping machine to the opposite party’s shop on 25.09.2019 for checking fault but, inspite of several requests made by the complainant over phone and in person the opposite party did not give any proper reply or service to the complainant.  Thus the complainant’s business was badly affected and his reputation was spoiled.  Thereafter the complainant also lodged a police complaint on 17.10.2019 at Korattur Police Station and the Police had issued C.S.R. vide No.1255/2019.  The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2019 for which the opposite party did not give any reply.  Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party, the present complainant was filed for the relief as mentioned above.

Defence of the opposite party:

The opposite party filed version disputing the complainant’s allegations contending interalia that the complainant did not purchase the Tapping machine with motor and hence at the time of installation itself due to the old electric motor in the new machine some sound started erupting and the complainant being the regular customer a mechanic was sent to inspect the machine who found that their machine was normal and its working condition was good.  On 25.09.2019 the complainant sent the machine without motor, belt and fittings to the opposite party’s shop contending that it was not functioning. The opposite party checked the machine and found that it was working in a good condition with the help of his own motor and other accessories.  Thus the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint contending that the machine was not a defective one and deficiency in service committed by them. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.  On the side of opposite party though sufficient opportunities was given to file proof affidavit they did not appear and did not file proof affidavit or documents and hence evidence on their side was closed on 19.04.2022. The opposite party thereafter did not appear for filing written arguments and making oral arguments and hence the opposite party was set ex-parte on 30.06.2022 and the matter was decided accordingly.

Point for consideration: 

Whether the complainant is successful in proving that the Tapping machine supplied to him by the opposite party was a defective one and if so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point;

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations;

Aadhar Card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;

MSME Udyog Aadhaar Registration Certificate of Complainant  was marked as Ex.A2;

The Tax Invoice dated 14.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;

Delivery Challan dated 25.09. 2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Complaint copy dated 17.10.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;

CSR Copy No.1255/2019 issued by the Korattur Police Station dated 02.11.2019 was marked as Ex.A6;

A legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 19.12.2019 was marked as Ex.A7;

Acknowledgement card for receipt of notice was marked as Ex.A8;

 Heard the oral arguments and also perused the written arguments filed by the complainant.  The main crux of the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the Tapping machine supplied by the opposite party was a defective one and when given to the opposite party for repair on their request, the same was not serviced by them and hence he sought for the refund of the amount paid towards the purchase of the machine.

We perused the documents and pleadings submitted by both parties.  The submission by the complainant is that the machine was entrusted with the opposite party to cure the defects.  In the written version it is admitted by the opposite party that the machine purchased from them by the complainant was given to them on 25.09.2019 for inspecting the defects.  However in the written version it is submitted by the opposite party that they have inspected the same and also assembled but the complainant did not come forward to get delivery of the machine.  If the version is true and if the complainant was requested by the opposite party to take delivery of the machine after repair there would not have arisen a situation for the complainant to approach the police on 02.11.2019 evidenced by Ex.A6 the CSR copy No.1255/2019 issued by the Korattur Police Station.  We could see that a complaint was given by the complainant that the subject machine was purchased from the opposite party and as the machine immediately had given some trouble and the same was entrusted to the opposite party but the opposite party had cheated the complainant without repairing the same. 

 In the present case, as the opposite party themselves had admitted that the machine had some defects in their written version and that they had repaired it and assembled to be given and therefore there no need arise for any expert opinion to prove the defect in the product as it is the admitted fact.  However the issue to be decided in the present complaint is that whether the Tapping machine entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party for repair was returned to the complainant after the rectification of the defect or not. 

 It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted the machine on their request to the opposite party. The written version submitted by the opposite party it was submitted that they were always ready to deliver the repaired assembled machine but the complainant did not take back the same. But no proof was produced by the opposite party in support of their contention. Even the opposite party did not come forward to file any proof affidavit in support of their contentions.  In such scenario we have no other option but to accept the submissions made by the complainant that the machine was not given back delivery by the opposite party.  In such circumstances we hold that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in selling the defective machine and also in not delivering the same after rectifying the defects.  Thus we hold the point in favour of the complainant holding that the complainant was successful in proving the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

With regard to the relief to be granted by the opposite party to the complainant we feel it would be proper to direct the opposite party to refund the entire sale price paid by the complainant towards the purchase of machine as it is already admitted by the opposite party in their written version that the machine was only under their custody. Hence, refund of the amount with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization would be the appropriate relief for the complainant.  Further we also order compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.3000/- awarded for litigation the expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party

 

a)to refund Rs.16,590/- (Rupees sixteen thousand five hundred ninety only)with 6% interest from the date of complaint till realization; 

 

 b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c)  to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

                                                                                

       -Sd-                                                 -Sd-                                                             -Sd-                 

   MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER I                                                 PRESIDENT

 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13th day of July 2022

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 18.12.2015 Aadhar Card of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A2 ............... MSME Udyog Aadhaar Registration certificate. Xerox

Ex.A3 14.08.2015 Tax Invoice. Xerox

Ex.A4 25.09.2019 Delivery Challan. Xerox

Ex.A5 17.10.2019 Complaint copy. Xerox

Ex.A6 02.11.2019 CSR copy No.1255/2019 Xerox

Ex.A7 19.12.2019 Legal notice to the op. Xerox

Ex.A8 20.12.2020 Acknowledgement card. Xerox

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party;

 

 

Nil

 

       -Sd-                                                          -Sd-                                                -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                               MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT