IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 31st day of December, 2015
Filed on 26.02.2015
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
2. Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
3. Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.64/2015
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. Thomas Mathew 1. Nova Traders, WZ – 1
Paratharayil House Vishnu Garden, Khyala
Punnamada Ward New Delhi – 110 018
Avalookkunnu P.O.
Alappuzha – 688 006 2. Sri. Sudheer Kumar
(By Adv. Vineetha P.S.) Managing Director
-do- -do-
O R D E R
ANTONY XAVIER (MEMBER)
The complainant’s case in succinct is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a paper plate manufacturing machine for an amount of Rs.1,24,800/- from the opposite parties. The complainant purchased the machine for the sole reason that the opposite party assured the complainant that the raw materials for the plate would be supplied by the opposite party. The opposite party further promised the complainant that the opposite party would purchase the finished products from the complainant. The complainant was made believe that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- could be earned per annum. The opposite party guaranteed the complainant that whenever the business turns dull the machine would be taken back by the complainant after the cost of the same being refunded. Apart from the aforesaid amount, the complainant further gave a total amount of Rs.10,000/- pertaining to the installation of the machine. Thereafter the complainant paid another amount of Rs.20,000/- for obtaining the raw materials. The complainant supplied 26000 pieces of finished plates to the opposite party. However, the opposite party never paid any amount to the complainant. The opposite party was fleecing money from the complainant. The service of the opposite party is deficient. On being aggrieved on this the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and relief.
2. Notices were sent. The opposite parties were not keen on appearing before this Forum to challenge the complainant’s case. With the result, the opposite parties were set exparte.
3. The complainant’s evidence consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant, and the documents Exts. A1 to A4 were marked. As has been already observed, the opposite parties did not turn up to dispute the complainant’s case.
4. Going by the complainant’s contentions of the complainant the question that come up for consideration are:-
1) Whether the opposite parties’ service is deficient?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
5. Concededly the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. According to the complainant, the opposite parties made the complainant purchase the plate manufacturing machine for an amount of Rs.1,24,800/- on tendering alluring promises. According to the complainant, he had to spend another total amount of Rs.30,000/- for raw materials and installation of machine, but nothing was produced to prove the same. At the same time, the opposite party did nothing in line with their alluring assurances. The intention of the opposite party was to swindle money from the complainant. We perused the entire materials brought on record by the complainant. At the first blush itself on an analysis of the sequence of events, it is categorically clear that the opposite parties made the complainant purchase the machine with the specific intention of making illegal enrichment. Therefore, in the context of the complainant’s most explicit case, and in the absence of challenging the complainant’s case by the opposite parties, we are least hesitant to accept the complainant’s case. It goes without saying that the complainant is entitled to relief. Ext.A1 clearly shows that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,24,800/- to the opposite parties.
For the foregoing facts and findings emerged herein above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,24,800/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand and eight hundred only) from the opposite parties.
In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund a total amount of Rs.1,24,800/- (Rupees one lakh twenty four thousand and eight hundred only) with 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant and the complainant should return the disputed machine to the opposite parties simultaneously. The opposite parties shall comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days of receipt of the same.
The complaint is allowed accordingly. No order as to compensation and cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of December, 2015.
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
Ext.A1 - Copy of the bill for Rs.1,24,800/-
Ext.A2 - Copy of the e-Stamp
Ext.A3 - Copy of the Stamp duty paid through e-stamp certificate
Ext.A4 - Copy of the advertisement of the machine
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
