Haryana

Karnal

CC/199/2017

National Dairy Research Institute - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Micromax Informatic Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Sharma

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No.199 of 2017

                                                      Date of instt. 13.06.2017

                                                      Date of decision 11.06.2018

 

National Dairy Research Institute, Karnal through its Director.

                                                                                                                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Micromax Informatic Ltd., 90-B, Micromax house Sector-18 Gurgaon-122015 through its Chairman/authorized Signatory.

2. M/s Micromax Informatic Ltd. 90-B, Micromax house sector-18 Gurgaon-122015 through its Managing Director.

      

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before   Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

      Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

               

 

 Present   Shri Devinder Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                   Opposite parties exparte.

                  

ORDER:   

 

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)                

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that OP no.1 is a firm and the OP no.2 is the manufacturer of OP no.1. It has been decided by the Government of India to use an Aadhar Enable Biometric Attendance System (AEBAS) in all the offices of Central Government including attached/subordinate office in India. The system will be installed in the office located in Delhi/New Delhi by 31^st December, 2014 and in other place this may be installed by 26.01.2015. The office of complainant is a research institute and providing Research and Educational facilities in the fields of Dairying for the betterment of the society and the same is under the control of Government of India. For the compliance of the instruction/order issued by the Government of India, the complainant had decided to purchase 30 numbers of Wall Mounted Aadhar Based Attendance System (AEBAS) machines from the OPs and for that the complainant asked the OPs to send rate contract regarding the aforesaid machines. The OPs had given rate contract vide letter no.BAS/ES-r/RC-711 D0000/1215/34/0A604/1424 dated 4.2.2015 on schedule “A” and also given warrantee of the machines for the period of 24 months from the date of its commissioning/demonstration on schedule “C”. Thereafter, the complainant placed a purchased order no.46116400571/3239-3242 dated 3.8.2015 on the basis of DGS & D Rate Contract before the OPs. OPs supplied the aforesaid machine to the complainant on 9.10.2015 as per DGS & D rate contract. The total price of the aforesaid machine was Rs.2,92,798/-. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of supplying the aforesaid machine the complainant paid 90% costs of the machine to the OPS and remaining 10% was to be paid after the satisfactory working/performance of the machine. After supplying the machine the Employee/Engineer of the OPs came to the office of the complainant and installed the same in the office of the complainant on different location on 12.01.2016 and 19.01.2016. At the time of installation the OP had given full assurance to the complainant about the quality and durability of the said machine. The warranty period of the said machine upto 12.01.2018 i.e. for the period of 24 months commencing from the date of installation i.e. 12.01.2016. The machine started malfunctioning within one month from the date of its installation/commissioned. From the very beginning the numbers of machines were not functioning properly. The different divisions of the office of the complainant and numbers of employees of the office of the complainant made a numbers of complaints regarding non-working of the wall mounted AEBAS machines supplied by the OPs.  Thereafter, complainant made a complaint to the OPs regarding non-working of the machines, but the OPs did not paid any heeds towards the request of the complainant. Thereafter, a number of reminders were sent by complainant to the OPs for repairing the defective machines, but the OPs did not taken any action on the reminders sent by the complainant. Thereafter, the Senior Administrative Officer (Purchase) NDRI Karnal made a complaint to Shri Narender Sharma who is the employee of the OPs through mail on 29.04.2016 regarding the non-working of the wall mounted AEBAS machines. Again the Senior Administrative Officer NDRI Karnal made a complaint to the OPs vide letter no.F.No.16-183/ABASS/15-16/SPA-IV-5405-5406 dated 21.11.2016 regarding non-working of the machine and made a request for deputing the competent Engineer who can remove the defects of the aforesaid machines. The OPs replied the aforesaid letter vide letter dated 8.12.2016 by mentioning “that to release our balance payment i.e.10%.” Our Engineer will attend all the devise within two working days from the date of payment release. It is pertinent to mention here that the remaining payment i.e. 10% was to be paid by the complainant to the OPs only after the satisfactory performance of the machines. It is further mentioned here that the machines supplied by the OPs has not been working properly and many of the machines are still laying stop. The complainant again made a complaint to the OPs through mail on 20.12.2016 regarding malfunctioning of the Wall mounted machines. After receiving the complaint Mr. Sourabh Service Engineer of the OPs came to the office of the complainant on 27.12.2016 for repairing the defective machines installed at various location in NDRI Karnal and tried to set the said machines in proper working order, but despite all his efforts he could not remove the defects of the machines and he promised to pass on the matter to their hardware section for further remedy to the aforesaid problem, but after the visit of the service engineer from the firm of the OPs they have not been paid any heed towards the problem of the complainant. Complainant again made complaint on 20.01.2017 through e-mail regarding malfunctioning of the said machine but OPs did not take any action on the complaint made by the complainant. Thereafter, the office of the complainant again received a numbers of complaint dated 03.02.2017, 04.02.2017, 06.02.2017, 07.02.2017, 13.02.2017 etc. from its different division and employees regarding non-working of the aforesaid machines. Thereafter, the OPs asked the complainant to sent two wall mounted AEBAS machines at the firm of the OPs for repairing and to keep the same under observation. As per the desire of the OPs the complainant dropped two machines at the site of the OPs on 23.02.2017 and all the issues and defects were explained to Mr. Surender Kumar and Sourabh, who are the employee of the OPs. The said machine were collected by the complainant from the OPs on 24.03.2017 and the aforesaid machines were put on testing on 25.03.2017, but the problem/defects in the said two machines and other machines are same. Intimation regarding this fact was again given to the OPs vide mail dated 1.4.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that after receiving the intimation the OPs have not taken any action to repair/replace the defective machines till today. The complainant made a number of requests to OP to replace the aforesaid machines are still under the warrantee period, but the OPs refused to accept the claim of the complainant inspite of knowing the fact that there are some manufacturing defects in the machines supplied by them, which clearly proves the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 12.09.2017.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32 and closed the evidence on 16.05.2018.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

5.              It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant purchased 30 numbers of Wall Mounted Aadhar Based Attendance System (AEBAS) machines from the OPs,  vide purchased order no.46116400571/3239-3242 dated 3.8.2015 on the basis of DGS and D Rate contract. The OP delivered the said machines on 9.10.2015 for a total sum of Rs.2,92,798/- as is clear from Ex.C-4. The said machines were installed/ commissioned in the office of complainant by the engineer of OPs on 12.1.2016 and 19.1.2016. The warranty of the same was given by the OPs for a period of 24 months. The allegations of the complainant is that said machines started mal-functioning within one month from the date of installation and the machines did not work properly, so the complainant reported the matter to the OPs several times to repair the said machines but the OPs did not pay any heed towards the request of complainant. The complainant sent reminders to the OPs but the OPs did not take any action. It is further alleged that the Senior Administrative Officer (Purchase) NDRI Karnal made a compliant to Narender Sharma who is the employee of OPs through mail on 29.4.2016 regarding the non-working of the machines. The said officers again made complaint vide letter dated 21.11.2016 and the OP replied the same vide letter dated 8.12.2016 mentioning therein “That to release our balance payment i.e.10%” and stated that their Engineer would attend all the device within two working days from the date of payment release. It is further alleged that the remaining payment i.e. 10% was to be released after satisfactory performance of the machines. It is further alleged that the complainant again made a complaint through mail dated 20.12.2016 and thereafter one Mr. Sourabh, Service Engineer of OPs came to the office of complainant on 27.12.2016 and tried to set the said machines in proper working order but he could not remove the defects of the machines. After the abovesaid visit the OPs have not paid any heed towards the grievance of the complainant. The complainant again made complaint on 20.01.2017 through mail but the OPs had not taken any action. As the machines were not working properly and the Engineer of OPs could not set the machines in order, therefore, the said machines have some manufacturing defects and due to this reason the complainant made requests to the OPs for replacement of the machines but the OPs refused to accept the request of the complainant. The complainant in support of his version filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C32. On the other hand, OPs did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. It is pertinent to mention here that the OPs had written a letter dated 8.12.2016 Ex.C-16 to the complainant vide which the OP demanded the 10% balance payment and stated that their Engineer would attend all the devices within two working days from the date of payment released. From this fact it is clear that the OPs were interesting in getting the balance payment without setting the machines in order. When the complainant was making complaints several times, it was the duty of the OPs firstly to set the machines in order and then made the demand for balance payment. But the OPs have put the condition of balance payment before setting the machines in order which is a grave mis-conduct on the part of the OPs. In the above circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Biometric Attendance Machines in question of the complainant were defective and the OPs failed to resolve the grievance of the complainant. Hence, the OPs are deficient.

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussions, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to replace the Biometric Attendance Machine in question with new one of the same make and model. However, it is hereby made clear that if the same make and model of the Biometric Machine as purchased by the complainant is not available with the OPs then the OPs are liable to pay to the complainant the cost of the machine received by the them. The OPs are further directed to pay Rs.5500/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 11.06.2018

                                                                       

                                                                       President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                            Member