Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the purchase of a ‘Cup preparing machine’ from the opposite party as mentioned in the heading of this order, and post sales service by the said opposite party the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against the OP, as, in spite of allowance of sufficient time, the OP apart from filing a maintainability petition did not appear before this Commission at any further stage. The said petition was also dismissed ex parte as the OP did not feel it necessary to attend the hearing in connection with the petition.

The fact of the case is that the complainant being a manufacturer of paper cup reportedly purchased a ‘cup preparing machine’ from the OP under invoice no.INV/PE/18-19/002 Dtd.06.04.2018 for a consideration price of Rs.6,94,000/- which was inclusive of GST element of Rs.54,000/-.

The complainant claims to have availed of a loan of Rs.6,50,000/- from State Bank of India, Bohichberia Branch, Tamluk, Purba Medinipur for the purpose of the said purchase.

However, the complainant was compelled to lodge a complaint with the OP as allegedly, the machine was not functioning smoothly. Consequent upon the same, the concerned technical personnel on behalf of the OP reportedly visited the spot but in spite of making attempts, failed to normalize the functioning of the machine.

However the synopsis of the complaint petition is that there was a purported purchase of a cup making machine at a price of Rs.6.94 lacs which did not function properly and in spite of repeated persuasion with the OP selling dealer, the defect was not rectified which allegedly resulted in harassment, financial loss and mental pain for the complainant.

Considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of the entire consideration price of Rs.6,94,000/-, to pay Rs.5,50,000/- as compensation for causing mental trauma and harassment and to pay further Rs.3,00,000/- for ‘Loss of business’.

The OP’s declared place of business is within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.                                                                                     

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, certain annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant are perused.

However it has already been mentioned in this order that the only OP preferred to shun the case proceeding and eventually the case ran ex parte against him.

The petitioner categorically states in his petition that the machine was actually purchased for ‘the purpose of business and for the economic development of his family members’. However, the term, ‘economic development of family members’ does not necessarily establish that the complainant earns his livelihood from the business only.

In the ninth paragraph of the complaint petition, the complainant indicates that the machine at the time of submission of the complaint petition was lying in the custody of the OP. But the complainant does not specify as to when the machine started malfunctioning and at what point of time the machine was shifted to the OP’s place for repair.

 In the preceding paragraph it is stated that as on the date of making the petition the complainant was not in receipt of any intimation as to when the said machine would be delivered after rectifying the defect.

However in serial no. 10 the complainant contradicts himself by saying that the machine was turned back to him after repair but the defect persisted.

In the petition, it is claimed that the machine was purchased against a consideration price of Rs.6,94,000/- under the invoice no. INV/PE/18-19/002 dtd.06.04.2018 whereas the photocopy of the invoice shows an amount of Rs.3,54,000/- which is inclusive of GST separately charged of Rs.54,000/-.

The advice which shows the value of ‘Paper cup machine’ at Rs.6,40,000/- is actually a quotation issued by the OP, the photocopy of which has been submitted by the complainant.

The consideration price claimed to have been paid is Rs.6,94,000/- and the invoice date is 06.04.2018 whereas the photocopy of the purported money receipt dtd.10.02.18 reflects an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- only.

Barring a photocopy of a pay-in-slip dtd.08.03.18 showing a deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-, no comprehensive documents related to the loan taken from State Bank of India has been submitted.

Now in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that the instant petition suffers from opacity and is full of inconsistencies and self contradictions.

The veracity of the statements incorporated in the complaint petition appears questionable.

Hence it is

                                                    ORDERED

that the complaint case No.115/2019 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.