Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/189/2016

N.Anantha Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Reliable Paper,(A Unit of Wishspring the leisure Pvt ltd) - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ganesan and Other

15 Sep 2016

ORDER

                                                                           Date of Complaint  : 29.06.2016

                                                                 Date of Order         : 15.09.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,       :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                     :  MEMBER–I

  DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS :   MEMBER II      

C.C.No. 189/ 2016

THIS THURSDAY  15^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

Mr. N. Anantha Kumar,

S/o. V. Nagarajan,

Plot No.227, Vel Nagar,

Polivakkam,

Tiruvallure.

Pincode 602 002.                                              .. Complainant.

                                                         -Vs-

M/s. Reliable Paper, (A Unit of Wishspring the Leisure Pvt. Ltd.), Rep. by its Director, No.87/2, 2nd Floor, G.N. Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017.                                 .. Opposite party.

 

For the complainant           :    M/s. K.Ganesh, B.Sundar  &  P.Asha Rao           

For the opposite party       :    Exparte.    

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- towards cost of the single die paper plate machine and accessories with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint. 

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the opposite party was set exparte on 3.8.2016. 

3.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11  filed by the complainant and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant’s counsel.

4.     The complainant contended that he purchased a Paper Plate Manufacturing unit for the purpose of his livelihood and self-employment and paid a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- through cheque on 16.11.2015 and a sum of Rs.60,000/- through net transfer after delivery of the machine on 27.11.2015.   The opposite party also issued receipt for the said payments.  But the opposite party never supplied the other accessories attached with the machine even after payment made for the same.    Only after police complaint lodged before the Teynampet police station on 26.12.2015 against the opposite party they handed over the accessories on 9.1.2016.   Thus the opposite party caused untold mental agony and pain to the complainant.  

5.     The complainant further contended that when the machine was installed on 20.1.2016 the opposite party handed over the warranty card installation slip and also the S.S.I. card.   Though there was warranty for one year from the date of installation there was another condition that “if the machine is not used for any reason during this period for the personal reasons of the purchaser they cannot be proceeded against legally nor is the purchase consideration refundable”.  The complainant was shocked to see the said condition.   Therefore the opposite party’s terms and conditions are totally contrary and illegal.    Within a week of starting operations the bush on the oil tanker started seeping oil and even gushing it and whenever production was done the oil seepage would damage the raw material and rendering the whole process useless,  the main motor of the machine started to stutter and make ugly noises and finally failed fully.  The complainant made several complaints over phone and in person to rectify the defect but no proper response from the opposite party to resolve the complaint.  Hence he sent a letter to the opposite party for which they sent a reply letter that the complaint should be sent through email or visit the office directly.    The complainant also sent a legal notice on 10.6.2016  to the opposite party which was refused by them.   Thus the opposite party supplied a defective machine and caused mental agony and also failed to neither rectify the defect nor refund the money.   The machine is still lying idle without any purpose.  Hence the complainant filed the above compliant for refund of a sum of Rs.2,42,000/-  along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and also to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and metal agony and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

6.     It is evidenced through Ex.A3 that the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.1,82,000/- to the opposite party through cheque and also Rs.60,000/- through net transfer against purchase of Hydaraulic Paper Plate Machine and its accessories for which the opposite party issued  receipts i.e. Ex.A2 and Ex.A5.  

7.     The grievance of the complainant is that though he paid the entire amount of the machine and accessories the opposite party had not supplied the accessories along with machine, only after lodging of police complaint on 26.12.2015 the opposite party handed over the accessories on 9.1.2016.  Further though there is one year warranty for the machine the opposite party handed over a slip in which there was a condition that “if the machine is not used for personal reason during the warranty period the opposite party cannot be proceed legally nor the payment is refundable”.     Further the complainant has raised grievance that within one week of starting operations of the machine the bush on the  oil tanker started seeping oil and even gushing it and whenever production was done the oil seepage would damage the raw material and rendering the whole process useless,  the main motor of the machine started to stutter and make ugly noises and finally failed fully.  When the complainant informed the opposite party through phone calls, in person, and also through letters the opposite party failed to neither rectify the defects nor refund the money and the machine is useless.   Since it was purchased to earn for his livelihood he suffered monitory loss and mental agony due to the defective machine supplied by the opposite party, and the opposite party committed deficiency in service and he had sought for refund of the money.    

8.     On perusal of Ex.A8 it reveals that the opposite party had received the letter sent by the complainant to rectify the defect in the machine as such the opposite party is duty bound to rectify the defect since the machine is under warranty period.    It is also found from Ex.A9 that the complainant had sent a legal notice to the opposite party to refund the cost of the machine and accessories a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- after deducting the cost of raw material i.e Rs.90,000/- and the opposite party purposely refused to receive the same and it was returned.  Further the complainant has also filed the photographs of the oil leakage in the complaint mentioned machine i.e. Ex.A11.    

9.     Therefore from the evidence of the complainant and the documents on record it clearly reveals that the opposite party had supplied defective machine and in spite of receipt of complaint they had not taken any steps to rectify the defect but simply sent an irrelevant reply and also refused to receive the legal notice and also failed to refund the cost of the machine.   At least on receipt of notice from this forum the opposite party could have taken steps either to replace the machine or to refund the amount.   But they failed to do so.   As such the contention of the complainant that the opposite party supplied defective machine which suffers from manufacturing defect and committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and therefore he is entitled for refund of amount is acceptable.

10.    Though the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,42,000/- towards machine and accessories it appears from the legal notice that the complainant had claimed only Rs.1,52,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.90,000/- being the cost of raw material.  Whereas it is found from the complaint that the complainant sought for refund of entire amount of Rs.2,42,000/- which is contrary to the legal notice and hence it is not sustainable.   Therefore as already claimed by the complainant in his legal notice he is entitled only for refund of Rs.1,52,000/-.

11.    Furthermore it also appears that the complainant had purchased the machine for the purpose of his livelihood as self-employment hence due to the defective machine supplied by the opposite party he incurred monetary loss, suffered much hardship is also acceptable.  The counsel for the complainant also submitted that till date the opposite party had not taken any effort to rectify the defects nor replaced the machine nor refund the amount as requested by the complainant, the machine is also still lying idle without any purpose and the complainant has lost his livelihood due to the negligent act of the opposite party.    

12.    Therefore as discussed above from the evidence of the complainant and the documents on records it is proved that the opposite party had committed deficiency in service in supplying defective machine.  Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the entire cost of the machine and accessories after deducting a sum of Rs.90,000/- being  the cost of the raw material  as mentioned in the legal notice and also to compensate the complainant towards hardship caused to him for loss of livelihood.  

13.    Moreover the opposite party had not appeared before this forum to refute the contention of the complainant and defend their case but remained exparte which still shows their negligence.

14.    Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.1,52,000/- after deducting a sum of Rs.90,000/- being the cost of raw materials (Rs.2,42,000/ - Rs.90,000/- = Rs.1,52,000/-) on taking delivery of the complaint mentioned defective machine & accessories  and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

 In the result the complaint is partly allowed.   The opposite party is directed to refund  a sum of Rs.1,52,000/-    (Rupees one

lakh and fifty two thousand only) on taking delivery of the complaint mentioned defective machine & accessories,  to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards cost of litigation to the complainant  within six weeks from the date of this order,  failing which the above said amounts of (Rs.1,52,000/- + Rs.25,000/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. 

Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 15^th   day of  September   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

 

Ex.A1- 30.9.2015 – Copy of Invoice of opposite party.

Ex.A2- 14.11.2015  - Copy of receipt of opposite party.

Ex.A3- 30.11.2015 – Copy of Bank pass book of complainant.

Ex.A4- 27.11.2015 – Copy of Vat invoice.

Ex.A5- 8.12.2015   - Copy of receipt of opposite party.

Ex.A6- 25.4.2016   - Copy of letter from complainant to opposite party.

Ex.A7-    -            - Copy of Postal Ack. for above letter.

Ex.A8- 6.5.2016    -  Copy of reply from the opposite party.

Ex.A9- 10.6.2016  - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel.

Ex.A10-                - Copy of refused cover of notice.

Ex.A11-                - Photos showing damage machine.     

Opposite party’s Exhibits:-          

 

.. Nil ..   (exparte)

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.