OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.6/14
Present:-
1)Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. - President
2)Sri U.N.Deka - Member
Sri Shyamal Debnath -Complainant
S/O Sri Abhiranjan Devnath
Proprietor of M/S Chinmoy Flex Printing
Resident of Pakharapara,Boko,
P.O. & P.S.Boko
Districti –Kamrup, Assam.
-vs-
1) M/S Padmawati Marketing, - Opp.parties
G-12, Parmeswari Building
Chatribari Road,Guwahati-781001
2) Mr.Jiten Pandya,
Proprietor of M/S Padmawati Marketing,
G-12, Parmeswari Building
Chatribari Road,Ghty-781001,Assam.
Appearance-
Learned advocate Mr.Dilip Kr.Jain for the complainant
None for the complainant.
Date of argument- 16.2.2016
Date of judgment- 1.3.2016
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The complaint filed by Sri Shyamal Debnath was admitted on 7.1.14 and notices were served upon the opp.party M/S Padmawati Marketing, Guwahati-1 and they also appeared but failed to file the written statement after taking several adjournments and to take step after 27.5.14 and in result this forum, vide order dated 21.10.14 directed that this proceeding against the opp.parties will proceed in exparte. Thereafter, the complainant’s firm, proprietor of Sri Shyamal Debnath filed his affidavit and this forum also recorded oral evidence of one Sri Bikash Narzary as court witness. Thereafter, learned advocate, Mr.Dilip Kr.Jain filed the written argument on 16.2.16 for the complainant and also furnished his oral argument on the same day. We have perused the pleading as well as the evidence of the complainant. We have also perused the argument of learned counsel Mr.Dilip Kr.Jain; and today we deliver the judgment which is as below.-
2. The gist of the pleading of the complainant is that, he being the educated unemployed youth, for his self employment, wanted to start the flex printing business at Boko Bazar, district Kamrup( Rural) and approached United Bank of India, Boko Branch for a loan for start of his business and also collected a quotation from M/S Padmawati Marketing, Guwahati-1 bearing No. PN/Q-1460/12-13 dtd. 4.7.2012 of a large Format Solvent Printing Machine Model No. 6304 (10.5 Ft 4 Japanese Head 510 Nozzies Heads 4 Colour) valued at Rs.18,00,000/- plus VAT Rs.90,000/- and paid Rs.3,90,000/- to the opp.party as advance money as required, The United Bank of India, Boko branch, as per his application, Sanctioned the loan amount to him and paid Rs.6,00,000/- through RTGS dt. 16.8.2012, then by demand draft No.720878 dt. 17.8.12 paid Rs.6,00,000/- and vide another demand draft No.720889 dtd. 31.8.12 paid Rs.3,00,000/- (three lakhs) to Opp.Party No.1, but the opp.parties delivered a low quality, pre-owned and low valued machine (XAAR Brand) to the complainant after 8 months although the processed period was two months only but did not give him the invoice, users, manual, guarantee card of that machine nor installed the said said machine and thereby cheated him. Then he, vide letter dtd.22.12.12 asked the opp.party to supply the machine mentioned in the quotation and the UBI, Boko branch also, vide letter dtd. 24.12.2012 requested the opp.party to supply the machine quoted in the quotation within Dec 2012 or to return the money and then Opp.Party No.2 , vide his letter dtd. 8.1.13, informed the Bank that they would supply the quoted machine within January,2013. The opp.party, after eight months, supplied pre-owned Flex XAAR printing machine which is very low quality of value Rs.6.50 lakhs only and issued a invoice of the machine mentioned in quotation dtd.4.2.2012, but the complainant did not install that machine and requested the opp.parties to supply the machine as per quotation and the Bank also vide letter dated 15.7.13 and 10.8.13 informed the opp.party that due to supply of pre-owned , low quality and duplicate machine, the complainant failed to start his business and requested them to replace the same with original one. The complainant, vide a legal notice, asked the opp.party to replace the machine already supplied with the machine quoted in the quotation or to refunded the money, but they refused to do so. As he failed to start his business, failed to get subsidy form D.I.C.C. Guwahati and also bound to pay house rent at the rate of Rs.4,100/-p.m. in keeping the machine and Rs.3,000/- as pay to the staff per month and Rs.550/- p.m. as electricity charge since july, 2012 even without starting his business. For such unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.parties , he had to suffer huge financial loss and mental agony and harassment and hence he prays for directing the opp.party to return Rs.15,00,000/- , which he already paid to them, and to pay him Rs.50,000/- as compensation for putting him in mental agony and harassment, Rs.1,00,000/- as the Bank interest paid by him, Rs.1,95,000/- for his business loss and Rs.2,00,000/- against the expenditure he is doing in the payment of electricity bill, house rent and staff salary totaling Rs.19,45,000/-
- We have perused the evidence of the complainant (C.W.1) and C.W.2 Sri Bikash Narzary as well as the documentary evidence filed by the complainant. From evidence it is crystal clear that the complainant, Sri Shyamal Devnath started a business in the style of M/S Chinmoy Fax Printing at Boko Bazar, and accordingly he approached the United Bank of India, Boko Branch for a loan to establish his printing business and on advised of the Bank he procured a quotation from M/S Padmawati Marketing, Chatribari Road, Guwahati which is a periodical firm of Mr.Jiten Pandya (Opp.Party No.2) vide quotation No. PM/Q-1460/12-13 dtd.4.7.2012 and he submitted the said quotation in the United Bank of India, Boko Branch to procure his loan and accordingly to the said quotation, the brand name of said printing machine is Large Format Solvent Printing Machine Model : 6304 (10.5 Ft 4 Japanese Head 510 Nozzies Heads 4 Colour) and estimated price including VAT of the said printing machine is Rs.18,90,000/-. It is also found that the complainant entered into a purchase agreement with the opp.parties and paid them Rs.3,90,000/- as advance money and thereafter the Bank sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- in favour of thecomplainant and paid Rs.6,00,000/- through RTGS dtd. 16.8.2012 to the Opp.Party No.1 and then Rs.6,00,000/- vide draft No. 720878 dtd. 17.8.2012 and Rs.3,00,000/- vide demand draft No. 780889 dtd.31.8.2012 totaling Rs.15,00,000/-. From evidence it is found that even after full payment of the price of the said printing machine, the opp.parties, at first, have not delivered the said machine to the complainant and then the complainant and the Bank requested the opp.parties to deliver the said machine. On 29.4.2013, after eight months and after payment of the value of the machine, the op.parties delivered one printing machine to the complainant. From evidence it is clear that the delivered machine is a pre owned low quality flex XAARprinting machine of price about 6.50 lakhs only. Thus, it is clear that the supplied printing machine is not the printing machine quoted in the quotation and for which the opp.parties received Rs.18,90,000/- as value of said machine. It is also found that as per quotation, the machine was not supplied , but a low quality pre-owned machine was supplied. The complainant did not install the said machine and started his business and thereafter he immediately informed the opp.parties the matter and requested them to supply the machine as per quotation dtd. 4.7.2012 and also informed U.B.I., Boko Branch vide letter dtd. 15.7.13 and 10.8.13 (Ex 8 & 9) informed the opp.party that due to supply of Flex XAARlow quality machine instead of machine mentioned in the quotation, he could not start his business and requested them to take step; and he also issued legal notice dtd. 10.10.2013 (Ex.10) to the opp.parties with a copy to the Bank by which he informed the opp.parties thatthey have supplied low quality machine instead of the machine quoted in the quotation dtd.4.7.12 and requested them to install the genuine machine and then Opp.Party No.2 vide letter dtd. 20.10.2013 (Ex.11) gave a reply to him giving some False and misleading statement and then he again vide letter dtd. 6.11.2013 (Ex12) informed the opp.parties that the original order was cancelled and requested them to refund the entire amount of Rs.18,90,000/- . It is already established that the opp.parties supplied a low quality machine instead of the machine mentioned in the quotation and therefore, the opp.parties are liable to return the entire amount of Rs.18,90,000/- of which Rs.3,90,000/- to the complainant and Rs.15,00,000/-to the U.B.I. , Boko Branch.
i) The complainant states that he has been paying house rent in keeping the said machine @ 4,100/- per month and also paying Rs.3,000/- per month to the staff and Rs.550/- per month as electricity. His version is not rebutted as the opp.parties, even after receiving the notice, has not contested the case. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant has to spend Rs.7,650/- per month in paying house rent, staff salary and electricity charge since 29.4.13 till date. Therefore, the opp.parties are liable to pay Rs.2,60,100/- to the complainant as loss of business also to pay Rs.1,70,000/- as his income. So, the opp.parties are liable to pay at least Rs.4,30,100/-to the complainant for causing loss of business and income etc. to him. The opp.parties are also liable to pay another amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing harassment to him and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding having the opp.parties made the complainant victim and their unfair-trade-practice. The opp.parties are also liable to return Rs.3,90,000/- with interest @12% per annum from the month of August,2012 till date which the complainant had paid to them as advance money till realization.
ii) As the United Bank of India, Boko Branch paid Rs.15,00,000/- to the complainant as the price of printing machine mentioned in the quotation, the opp.parties are liable to return that amount to the said Bank with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from month of August, 2012,from which the bank would realize the balance amount of the loan
and credit the surplus amount in favour of the complainant in his account. The opp.parties are entitled to take out the machine already supplied from the business establishment of the complainant after payment of the entire awarded amount.
4) Because of what has been discussed as above the complaint is allowed on exparte and the opp.parties are directed to refund Rs.15,00,000/- to the United Bank of India , Boko Branch with interest @12% from the month of August ,2012, and to pay Rs.3,90,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12 % per annum from the month of August, 2012, till realization, and also to pay Rs.4,30,100/- to the complainant in the above against business loss etc. to him and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for causing harassment to him and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the proceeding, to which they are jointly and severally liable . It is also directed that on refunding Rs.15,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum as quoted above, the UBI, Boko Branch is to calculate the balance amount of the loan sanctioned to the complainant and deduct the same from that amount and credit the surplus amount in favour of the complainant in his account. The opp.parties are directed to pay the awarded amounts within three months, in default of which, the other amounts shall also carry interest @ 12% per annum from this date.
Given under our hands and seal of this Forum on this day 1st March, 2016.
Free copies of judgment be delivered to the parties.
(Md.S.Hussain)
President
(Mr.U.N.Deka)
Member
