Haryana

Ambala

CC/183/2020

Lakshmi Engineering Product - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phillips Machine tolls India Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Jaspal

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	183 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	14.09.2020
Date of decision	:	02.11.2023

Lakshmi Engineering Product, Chandigarh Road, village Sadopur, P.O. Kakru District Ambala through its Prop. Chaman Lal Goel.

……. Complainant

Versus

1. Phillips Machine Tolls India Pvt. Ltd.,W-225, TTC Ind Area, Khairma MIDC Navi Mumbai.
2. Hass Aurtomation India Pvt. Ltd. Plot no.El-35, TTC Industrial Area Mahape MIDC, Navi Mumbai.

….…. Opposite Parties.

 Before:       Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                     Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri B.S. Jaspal, Advocate, counsel for the complainant

                    Shri Gurparsad Singh Sidhu, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.        

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To lift the machine back and refund its price i.e. Rs.66,08,000/- along with interest @ 18% from the date of payment i.e. 11.02.2020 till its realization along with payment of foreclosure charges and interest paid to Small Industries Development Bank of India till the realization of payment;
2. To pay Rs.10 lacs as compensation for harassment, mental agony and loss of business
3. To pay Rs.30000/- as cost of litigation. 

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is the Prop. of Lakshmi Engineering Product, Chandigarh Road, village Sadopur, P.O. Kakru, District Ambala. OP No.1 is the authorized dealer of the machine in question and OP No.2 is the manufacturer. The complainant is manufacturing parts/components of the various types of tractor being supplied to M/S International Tractors Ltd. Hoshiarur (Sonalika brand), Action Construction Equipment Ltd.. Distt Palwal (ACE brand) and Mohindra Swaraj Ltd. Mohali (PTL brand) for his livelihood and is self employed. The representatives of OPs No. 1 & 2 had visited the site of the complainant so many times with the offer to sell Horizontal Machine EC-400-R Horizonal Machine Centre 20" x 20" x 20" ( 508x508x50) and assured that the said machine is perfect in working and is capable of manufacturing all the parts being already manufactured of desired quality and that it will increase the production capacity. It was also assured that OPs No.1 and 2 will be fully responsible for the perfection of the machine. As such, the complainant paid advance amount of Rs.500000/ vide cheque no.002551 dated 22.10.2019 to the OPs. On the assurance of the representatives of the  OPs No.1 and 2, the complainant had agreed to purchase a Horizontal Machine EC-400-R Horizontal Machine Centre 20" x 20" x 20" (508x508x50) from  OP No.1.  As such, the complainant had approached Small Industries Development Bank of India SCO No.124., Ground Floor, Tau Devi Lal complex, Urban Estate, Jagadhari for the loan to purchase the said machine. On 11.2.2020 the said bank sanctioned the loan to the tune of Rs.61,08,000/- vide letter no. 2020FEB 11/L 341190497, and  disbursed it to the OPs. In this manner, total amount of Rs.66,08,000/- stood received by OPs No.1 and 2. In turn OPs No.1 and 2 had supplied the machine vide invoice no.INR J- 19/20-02695 dated 14.02.2020. However, the OPs failed to install the said machine even within the lapse of period of 6 months and ultimately failed to do so. The said machine was suffering from inherent manufacturing defects from very first day and the representatives of the OPs No.1 and 2 had visited the premises of the complainant so many times and tried to remove the inherent manufacturing defects but failed to do so, despite replacing number of parts therein. The complainant had suffered loss of business, loss of interest paid to Small Industries Development Bank of India and future interest of Rs.50000/- approximately every month starting from 11.02.2020 which is being paid regularly in order to maintain the CIBIL score, over and above harassment and mental agony due to the illegal act and deficiency in services on the part of  OPs No.1 and 2.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect the complaint is not maintainable; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Commission etc. On merits, it has been stated by the OPs that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 02.09.2020 and the notice of the said complaint has been received by the OPs on 08.12.2020, whereas, on the other hand, the OPs had already made the payment of Rs.66,08,000/- to the complainant by way of demand draft No.145834 and 145835 dated 10.09.2020, both drawn on Indian Bank, Branch Kharbar, Navi Mumbai in the name of Lakshmi Engineer Products. After the installation of the machine at the premises of the complainant the representatives of the OPs inquired about the performance of the said machines from the complainant, on which the complainant many times told that he could not begin the work as he is not having adequate funds for the raw material as well as for the production of the parts.  The complainant had not obtained or annexed the report of any expert to the effect that the machine was having any manufacturing defects. In the absence of any report of an expert it cannot be concluded that the machine had inherent manufacturing defects. The complainant had already received the no due certificate from the SIDBI with regard to the re- payment made by him. The OPs have highest regard for the professional relations and have utmost sincerity in every professional transaction, as such after obtaining the consent of the complainant and  without any protest on the part of the complainant, the OPs have repaid the entire money with a view to maintain long relations. The complainant had not made any objection or protest at the time of receipt of the amount of cost of machine from the OPs and has intentionally filed the present complaint as an afterthought. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of Chaman Lal Goel, Prop., Lakshmi Engineering Product, Chandigarh Road, Village Sadopur, P.O.Kakru District Ambala as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-44 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Satvir Singh son of Harjit Singh R/o House No.B-1/162, Surat Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab, 144008 as Annexure OP/A and affidavit of Shri Jaskaran Singh, Senior Sales Manager at Phillips Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., 103/1, New Daba Road, GT Road, Ludhiana 141003 as Annexure OP/B and closed the evidence on behalf of the OPs.
5.            We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file and the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OPs.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not refunding the amount alongwith interest against the machine in question, alongwith other amount of financial losses suffered by the proprietor of the complainant, as the same was suffering from manufacturing defects and beyond use, the OPs are deficient in providing service and also adopted unfair trade practice.
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections taken in the written version submitted that irrespective of the fact that the machine in question did not suffer any manufacturing defect, yet, this issue is no more surviving, as the amount of Rs.66,08,000/- already stood refunded to the complainant, which fact has been concealed by its Proprietor,  thereby misleading this Commission and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.  
8.           It may be stated here that since it has been admitted between the parties that the amount of Rs.66,08,000/- stood refunded to Proprietor  of the complainant, as such, the  sole question which now left for consideration is, as to whether, the Proprietor  of the complainant is entitled to get any further relief in the matter or not. It is significant to mention here that though the OPs have refunded the amount of Rs.66,08,000/- to the Proprietor  of the complainant, yet, the said amount remained with them for quite of long time and they have utilized the same and at the same time, the Proprietor  of the complainant was deprived of, use of the same. Thus, since the fact of the matter is that amount remained deposited with the OPs for quite long time, therefore, the complainant is entitled to some interest on the deposited amount, for the period the same was retained by the OPs, in view of the principle of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India &Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC) wherein it was held as under:-

“9.  It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest.  Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital.  For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount.  Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period.  Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B.”

 

9.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-  
   1. To pay interest @6% p.a. on the amount of Rs.66,08,000/- to the complainant w.e.f 10.09.2020, i.e the date of payment of the amount of Rs.66,08,000/-, till its realization.  
   2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
   3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

           

  Announced:- 02.11.2023

 

	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
	Member	President