Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/64/2016

Kamireddy Syamalamma, W/o P.Krishna mohan Reddy, - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.M.R. Agencies, by its proprietor Rajamani - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah pillai

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:-24-06-2016                                                                                                               Order Date:  11-11-2016

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt. T. Anitha, Member

        FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND

SIXTEEN

C.C.No.64/2016

Between

Smt. Kamireddy Syamalamma, MA., P.hd.,

W/o. P. Krishna Mohan Reddy, Hindu,

Aged 53 years, r/a. 4-20, Srikrishna Nagar,

8^th Cross, M.R.Palli, Tirupati-2,

And 1^st leader of Taruni Mahila Sangam,

Durgabai Mahilapranganam,

Tiruchanur Road, Market Yard,

Tirupati.                                                                                  … Complainant

 

And

P.R.M Agencies, by its Proprietor,

Rajamani, D.No.16-30-64/3,

Lakshminagar, 1^st Lane, Old Guntur,

Guntur District,

Andhra Pradesh,

Cell: 9542556734

Of corrected as per memo dated 22.08.2016.                               … Opposite party

 

           This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 28.10.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments of the complainant and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant and opposite party is remained exparte having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

          This complaint is filed under Sections 12 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite party either to rectify the defect in the unit or to refund the cost of the unit of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and deficiency of service and also pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

           2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant submits that herself and 11 others and they names as K.Nagaveni, D.Latha, K.Subbalakshmi, G.Anitha,                     J. Adilakshmi, K.Mohan Kumari, B.Ravindramma, V.Veenakumari, B.Vimala, M.Jyothi, M. Deepa, form an association under the name of Tharuni Mahila Sangam for the welfare of the women members of the Association under Self employment for eaking their livelihood and started an unit of Tharuni Cleaning Products i.e. soaps, washing powder at Durgabai Mahila Pranaganam, Tiruchanur, Tirupati. The unit was registered on 22.01.2014 with the General Manager, District Industrial Center, Chittoor. The members of the association are well trained under Durgabai Mahila Sisu Vikas Kendra, Tirupati under District Manager, APWCFC Tirupati in making the detergent powder, liquid soaps and marketing their products. The complainant further submits that for proper packing of their products they needed pouch and packing machine. Hence the complainant’s association contacted the opposite party and passed a resolution on 10.03.2015 to purchase the said packing machine from the opposite party through K.Srinivasulu a chemist of the said Association for Rs.2,00,000/-. Accordingly on 17.04.2015 an advance amount of Rs.75,000/- by way of cheque bearing no.300078 was paid to Rajamani i.e. opposite party and the opposite party assured  that the machine will be supplied within 15 days. But even after two months the opposite party failed to send the machine and caused unnecessary delay and failed to deliver the machine.

           3. The complainant further submits that the Chemist Srinivasulu of the said association deputed to get the machine directly from the opposite party on 20.06.2015 and paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash and also a cheque bearing no.580214 for Rs.25,000/- on 04.07.2015.  The opposite party undertakes to send the machine within 15 days along with warranty of one year. Consequently the packing machine was sent by the opposite party on 07.07.2015 through the vehicle bearing no. AP03-TB-9677 which was delivered on 08.07.2015 at Tirupati to the complainant’s Association along with way bill no.L0716032 showing the value of the goods for Rs.2,10,000/- without indicating VAT Tax. Therefore the Commercial Department Tirupati booked the case and collected Rs.10,000/- for the irregularity in the way bill sent by the opposite party which causes additional burden to the complainants on account of latches on part of the opposite party while sending the machine to them. And further no warranty or manual was sent along with the machine and no technician was deputed to install or to give demonstration regarding the functioning of machine, even after repeated phone calls. Therefore the machine kept unused. At last the opposite party himself arrive on 16.08.2015 to Tirupati and installed the machine including demonstration of its functioning and left the place. Surprisingly after 10 minutes he left the place the machine was break down. Thereafter despite several calls to his mobile cell no. 9542556734 about non functioning of the machine, no attempt was made by the opposite party to rectify the trouble shouting in the machine. As a result, the machine is lying as a waste product and the very purpose of purchase of the machine was defeated. Hence at last the complainant got issued legal notice on 23.03.2016 calling upon the opposite party to rectify the defect or to refund the cost of the unit but the above said notice was returned as refused. Hence after receiving the full consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the costs of the machine which is found defective and the opposite party failed to rectify the defect in time is nothing but deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties. Hence he filed the present complaint.

          4.  The opposite party failed to appear before this Forum even after receipt of the notice. Hence opposite parties called absent and set exparte.

          5.  The complainant one Smt. Kamireddy Syamalamma, W/o. Krishna Mohan Reddy filed her evidence on affidavit and Ex.A1to A11 were marked and written arguments of the complainant were filed and oral arguments were heard.

         6.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties    

                     towards the complainant?            

             (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so?         

             (iii)  To what Relief?

           7. Point No:-(i). The chief affidavit of the complainant re-iterated the contents of the complaint.  As already pointed out that, the opposite parties remained exparte and did not challenge the contents of the chief affidavit. Now the contention of the complainant’s, that  in order to packing of the material prepared by the members of their association they have placed an order for the purchase of the packing machine from the opposite party for Rs.2,00,000/- through their chemist K. Srinivasulu. Accordingly on 17-04-2015 an advance of Rs.75,000/- was  paid through cheque bearing No.300078  to Rajamani i.e.  the opposite party. The opposite party assured that the machine will be supplied within 15 days. But even after two months the opposite party did not send the machine and caused unnecessary delay. At last the chemist of their association K. Srinivasulu was deputed to get the machine directly from the opposite party and he paid Rs.1,00,000/- in cash on 20.06.2015  and Rs.25,000/- under cheque bearing no.580214 on 04.07.2015 in total a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the opposite party. The opposite party on 07.07.2015 sent the machine through the vehicle bearing no.AP03-TB-9677 and was delivered on 08.07.2015 at Tirupati without paying VAT tax. Therefore the Commercial Tax Department, Tirupati booked the case and collected Rs.10,000/- from the complainant  for the irregularity in the way bill sent by the opposite party. This causes additional burden to the complainant on account of latches on part of the opposite party while sending the machine. The complainant further stated that no warranty or manual was sent by the opposite party along with the machine and failed to send the technician to install the machine. At last after repeated phone calls the opposite party himself installed the machine and gave demonstration of the functioning of machine. Surprisingly after ten minutes when he left the place the machine was break down. There after despite several calls the opposite party failed to appear and rectify the defect in the said machine. Hence it clearly shows that the machine which was sold by the opposite party is defective one and also the opposite party failed to rectify the defect even after several calls made by the complainant shows the attitude of the opposite party towards the complainant which is nothing but deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. Hence we are of the opinion that there is a clear deficiency of service on part of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

           8. Point(ii):-   In view of our finding on point no.1 we are of the opinion that the complainant having paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the cost of  packing machine in order to eaking their livelihood under self employment scheme, but the above said machine was not worked properly and kept idle. As the opposite party failed to rectify the defect and failed to attend the service to the defective machine, the purpose of purchase of the machine was defeated. Hence the complainant is entitled to the cost of the machine i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only)along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint  i.e. 24.06.2016 till realization. The complainant is further entitled of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency of service. Hence accordingly this point is answered.

           9.Point (iii):-   In view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, that the complainant being a genuine consumer is entitled to refund of Rs.2,0,000/- (rupees two lakhs only) paid by the complainant and also she is entitled to recover the said amount from the opposite parties with interest and also entitled for the compensation , ands the complaint is allowed accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund the cost of the machine of   Rs.2,00,000/- (rupees two lakhs only)along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint  i.e. 24.06.2016  till realization. The opposite party further directed to take back the machine after making payment of its cost. The opposite party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and also the opposite party further directed  to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite party further directed to comply with the order within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which the compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand only) shall also carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till realization.   

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of November, 2016.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-                                                                                                        

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                               Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. Kamireddy Syamalamma(Chief Affidavit filed).

                                  Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

                                                                                             -NIL-

                              EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Minutes Book in the form of Register issued by the District Manager, DMSVK, APWCFC, Tirupati.
	Copy of Registration Certificate of M/s. Tharuni Cleaning Products, Tirupati by District Industrial Center, Chittoor. Dt: 22.01.2014.
	Copy of Statement Account of M/s. Taruni Cleaning Products of complainant. Dt: 01.04.2015 to 31.07.2015.
	Copy of the receipt for payment of money in cash for Rs. 10,000/- towards VAT issued by Commercial Taxes Department, Tirupati. Dt: 08.07.2015.
	Office copy of Legal Notice to the Opposite Party. Dt: 23.03.2016.
	Undelivered Regd. Letter addressed to the Opposite Party. Dt: 30.03.2016.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

                                              - NIL -

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                      President

 // TRUE COPY //

                                               // BY ORDER //

 

                                          Head Clerk/Sheristadar, 

                                              Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:  1) The Complainant

                  2) The Opposite party.