BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.229/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 16^th November 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                   

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite party to repair or re-install the machineries in proper condition, to furnish the warranty certificate or in the alternative to refund the amount received from the complainant with compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and such other reliefs.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant is a firm engaged in producing the water treatment plant for which complainant has called for quotation from the various firms, the opposite party has also submitted quotation.  The complainant has accepted the quotation of the opposite party on 29.03.2017 and communicated the same to the opposite party with certain conditions.  The opposite party has agreed for condition and accordingly, the amount of Rs.9,73,000/- was paid to the opposite party on 3 occasions by RTGS and by cash.  On 11.05.2017, the opposite party has supplied the machineries and its technical staff erected the plant and tried to start the same.  But, they were unable to bring the plant to running condition.  The warranty period was one year from the date of purchase, since there is manufacturing defect, the complainant could not get proper production. On 21.06.2017 a E-mail was sent to the opposite party to correct the same by providing technical support in running the plant.  The opposite party has undertaken to install the same or solve the problem by 22.06.2017, but so far as there is no reply from the opposite party. Thereby, a legal notice was sent on 27.06.2017.  In spite of it, there is no progress either in rectifying the defect or fixing the plant properly for the purpose of production.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     Opposite party appeared through the advocate.  But, in spite of providing number of opportunities, opposite party did not file version nor participated in the proceedings,  then this matter is set down for complainant’s affidavit evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on documents. Further evidence closed. After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
4.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not properly installing the machineries, thereby, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
2.  What order?

5.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

6.   Point No.1:- During evidence, the complainant has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint and his evidence  is to the effect that opposite party is engaged in manufactures and supplying machineries on “turn key” for water, bottling, washing and filling machine for the purpose and install the machinery, the complainant called for quotation and the complainant has accepted the quotation of opposite party and communicated the same to the opposite party for supply of machineries on certain condition.  The complainant has paid the amount of Rs.9,73,000/- on 29.03.2017, 11.05.2017 and subsequently. The opposite party has supplied the machineries and installed the same on 11.05.2017 with assistance of its technical staff. But the technical staff unable to bring the plant to running condition.  The warranty period of one year from the date of purchase, since the unit was not working, on 21.06.2017, the complainant has sent E-mail to do the needful to start the unit.  The said E-mail was answered by the opposite party and assured to solve the problem by 22.06.2017.  But, the opposite party has not made any attempt to rectify the defect or re-install the unit.  Thereby, a legal notice was caused on 27.06.2017, there is no reply from opposite party.  The attitude of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  Thereby complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.
7.    During arguments, counsel representing the complainant submits that there are documents issued by the opposite party relating to automatic bottling machine carbonated single unit.  The quotation given by the opposite party is for Rs.8,20,000/-.  There are letter correspondences by the complainant and the opposite party with each other.  There are materials, particularly the delivery challan issued by the opposite party, which reveals the total cost of unit and installation was Rs.9,83,080/-.  Thereby, the complainant has established that he has made payment to the full extent, though the opposite party supplied the machineries failed to see that the machinery fixed in proper condition and the result of such fixing giving yielding to the complainant.  Thereby, even after installation, the complainant has made correspondence by E-mail to the opposite party with a request to see that the unit is properly installed and bring it to working condition.  In spite of it, and though there was assurance by opposite party to install the same, there is no progress on the part of opposite party.  Thereby, this Forum finds that the attitude of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service in not attending the repairs or not properly installing the machineries as per requirements of the complainant.  Thereby, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs or in the alternative for refund of the entire amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party with interest, compensation and litigation expenses. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
8.   Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the opposite party is liable to repair or reinstall the machineries in proper condition and to provide fresh warranty certificate to the complainant or in the alternative to refund the cost of the unit i.e. machinery worth Rs.9,83,080/- with interest, and liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.  Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to repair or reinstall the machineries in a proper working condition and to provide fresh warranty certificate in 45 days of this order or in the alternative to refund Rs.9,83,080/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 26.07.2017 till payment.
3. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant in 45 days of this order.   Failing which the opposite party shall pay interest at 12% p.a. on the said total sum of Rs.55,000/- from the date of this complaint i.e. 26.07.2017 till payment.     
4.  In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party to undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(D