Kerala

Kollam

CC/66/2021

Sri.V.Rajesh,aged 42 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Power Tek Enterprises,Proprietor, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Civil Station ,
Kollam-691013.
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/66/2021
( Date of Filing : 12 Feb 2021 )
 
1. Sri.V.Rajesh,aged 42 years,
S/o.Vijayan,Rajesh Bhavanam,Karuvelil.P.O,-691505, Ezhukon(via), Kottarakkara,Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Power Tek Enterprises,Proprietor,
Opp.Civil Station, Pathanapuram,Kollam,Kerala-689 695.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Sep 2022
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KOLLAM

Dated this the    30th  Day of  September 2022

 

    Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LL.M. President

        Smt.S.Sandhya Rani, Bsc, L.L.B,Member

                    Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

 

                                                    CC.66/2021

 

V.Rajesh                                                     :         Complainant

S/o Vijayan

Rajesh Bhavanam,

Karuvelil P.O, Pin-691505,

Ezhukone(via), Kottarakkara,

Kollam.

V/s

Power Tek Enterprises                                 :         Opposite party

Proprietor, Opp.Civil Station

Pathanapuram, Kollam, Kerala,

Pin-689695.

 

FINAL     ORDER

E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM , B.A, LL.M, President

          This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          The complainant started Thiruvathira  Solid Bricks  at Thuruthel Mukku, Edvattam, Pavithreswaram Village, Kottarakkara Taluk.  Opposite  party supplied a quotation agreeing to supply necessary machineries for functioning of the above Solid Bricks factory.  The opposite party has paid the price of the machinery through bank.  Though the  opposite party brought the machinery he has not fitted the same inspite of several request.  After 5 months the opposite party has fitted the same.  The Hydrolic Engine and other accessories have been constructed using useless bearing and bolts etc. and hence the above machineries are sub standard one.  But the complainant has  purchased  the same   on the belief that it is a  standard quality machinery.  But after installation and started working the complainant  came to know that machineries are defective and has been constructed by old dilapidated bearing and bolts.  The above conduct of the opposite party amounts  to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The hollow bricks made by using the above machinery were having no qualities instead of  8 inches, the hollow bricks made by using the machinery was having 8½ inch in size.  The shape of hollow bricks was also not proper.  When contacted the opposite party made the complainant to believe that it would not matter.  He has constructed 18000 hollow bricks by using the above machinery.  But it was very difficulty to continue to making the hollow bricks by using the above machinery and hence he contacted  the opposite party over phone, who deputed one employee but employee could not solve the problem.  Thereafter one mason from Sumayya Work shop at Parippally came and replaced the broken bearing  even then the problem was not solved.  The opposite party after receiving the price of the machinery in advance supplied sub standard machinery constructed by using old and dilapidated baring and bolt and thereby  the complainant could not proceed with his avocation and his employees were lost their employment which has caused much mental agony apart from financial loss.  The complainant further prays to take back the sub standard machinery and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

          Though notice was served the opposite party failed to appear.  Hence he was set exparte. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and got marked Ext.A1 to A4 documents.  Heard  the complainant who has been  conducting the case by himself.   Perused the records.

          The unchallenged averments in the affidavit  coupled with Ext.A1 to A4 documents would establish in the following.  The complainant on 15.09.2020 purchased machines and equipments such as 860 semi automatic triple vibrator, 5 HP hydrolic mixer machine, 12x8x4 solid  die, 12x8x6 die set solid, 16x8x4 die set solid, material trolley, brick trolley for  Rs.4,85,000/- including GST.  The above fact is evident from Ext.A2 tax invoice issued by the authorized signatory of the opposite party Powertek enterprises, Pathanapuram.  Ext.A1 would establish that the complainant has paid the invoice price of the above machinery as per Ext.A2 invoice through bank transfer.  Ext.A3 is a quotation dated 22.08.2020 furnished by the opposite party agreeing to supply the same at the price quoted in Ext.A2.  Ext.A4 is the hand written bill for the amount of Rs.4,85,000/- shown in Ext.A2 and A3 documents.  In view of the above materials on record it is clear that the opposite party has supplied the machineries and equipments for making  hollow bricks to the complainant after receiving Rs.4,85,000/- as alleged in the complaint.

          The averments in the proof affidavit para 2 would further indicate that the opposite party has supplied the machineries stated in A3 quotation and received the amount as per Ext.A2&A4 documents by making him to believe that the above machineries are standard one used for the purpose for which it was purchased.  But the opposite party failed to install the same for 5 months and therefore the complainant could not  start his factory for making hollow bricks.  Apart from  that when it was installed and started to function the complainant came to know that the above machineries are sub standard one.  As per the averments in the proof affidavit the machineries are having the following defects. 

          Machinery IÄ ]g¡w sN¶Xpw KpW-\n-e-hm-c-an-Ãm-¯Xpw teme-amb materials D]-tbm-Kn¨v \nÀ½n¨n-«p-Å-Xp-am-Wv.  Sn machinery bn I« \nÀ½n¨p-Xp-S-§n-b-t¸mÄ AXn\v F«v C©v L\¯n\v  ]Icw F«c C©v L\amWv D­m-bn-cp-¶-Xv.  am{X-aà Sn I«-IÄ¡v tImWn¸pw D­m-bn-cp-¶p. 

          The above defects are materials defects and has caused due to the manufacturing defects in the machinery.  It is also clear from the available materials that  though the matter was intimated to the opposite party he failed to undo the defects.  Though the complainant started manufacturing  of hollow bricks and manufactured 18000 hollow bricks all of them were having shapeless.  Thereafter on 07.01.2021 he sent one of his employees to the opposite party company  and caused to set right  the defect of the above machinery.   But the opposite party could not set right the defects.   However one mason from Parippally  came and replaced the old and broken bearing but the same has not cured the defect of the machinery.  The above defect of the hollow bricks manufacturing machinery and failure to install the same for about 5 months would definitely amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Therefore the opposite party is bound either to supply and install a new machinery by taking back the defective one or to return the invoice price of the machinery.  The complainant is also entitled to get compensation for the loss caused to the complainant on account of  5 months delay installing the machinery and also due to the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the supply of sub standard machineries.  We find merit in the complaint and the same is only to be allowed.

          In the result complaint stands allowed in the following terms.

  1. Opposite party is directed to take back the defective machinery from the hollow bricks manufacturing unit of the complainant and replace a new and standard quality hollow bricks machinery within 45 days from today or in the alternative the opposite party shall return the invoice price of the machinery  within 45 days.
  2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for  financial loss occurred to the complainant due to the delayed installation of the machinery and further directed  to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the  mental agony sustained.
  3. The opposite party is also directed to pay costs Rs.5000/- to the complainant.
  4.  The opposite party is directed to comply with the above directions within 45 days from today failing which the complainant is entitled to recover the amount covered under relief No.1 and  along with interest @9% p.a from the date of purchase of the machinery till realization  with costs Rs.5000/-  from the opposite party proprietorship concern and its assets.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Deepa.S transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  30th  day of  September  2022.

 

E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim:Sd/-

S.Sandhya Rani:Sd/-

Stanly Harold:Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order

Senior Superintendent

 

 

 

INDEX  

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext A1:       Receipt voucher dated 15.09.2020 for Rs.4,85,000/-.    

Ext A2:       Tax invoice dated 15.09.2020.

Ext.A3:       Copy of  Quotation dated 22.08.2020.

Ext.A4 :      Copy of order form.

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for the opposite party:-Nil

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANDHYA RANI.S]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.