Orissa

Cuttak

CC/70/2022

Gautam Kandar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pradeep Kumar,Director - Opp.Party(s)

Self

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

 

C.C.No.70/2022

           Sri GoutamKandar, Proprietor,

           M/s. G.D. Mirror

           Industries,SE-9(Annex),Industrial Estate,

           At/PO/PS:Madhupatna,Khapuria,Cuttack-753010.       ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

 

1.        Sri Pradeep Kumar, Director.

 

2.        Sri Ved Prakash,C.M.D.

 

3.        M/s. Vacuum Instruments Company Limited,

 

All are Residents of:

81/5746,Reghapura,P.O &P.S:Karolbag,

New Delhi.                                                                                 ...Opp. Parties..

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

 

Date of filing:    20.04.2022

Date of Order:  17.02.2023

 

For the complainant:            Self.

For the O.P no.     :                None.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 3     :     Mr.  Rakesh Sharma,Adv. & Associates

 

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that intending to purchase one Vacuum Coating Machine on glass sheets for Aluminium Mirrors he had made correspondence with the O.Ps who had on their part quoted through quotation no.VAC/QTN/SC/228 dt.14.1.2012.  The O.Ps had finalised the cost price of the VICCO Glass Coating Machine, Model : SC-2000 for coating 4’x6’ Glass size 2 nos. sheets of the said machine at a price of Rs.14,50,000/- alongwith certain terms and conditions.  The complainant had agreed to pay  advance amount of 40% of the cost price before construction of the said machine and had also agreed to pay the balance amount of 60% alongwith taxes before the machine was to be despatched in his favour.  The complainant had made an immediate payment of Rs.1,00,000/- on 14.3.12 while he had visited the office of the O.Ps at Karolbag,New Delhi that day.  Later, on 25.4.12,23.5.12 and 6.2.13 the complainant had made payments through RTGS to the O.Ps @ Rs.1,00,000/- for each transaction and thus had paid a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- to them.  O.P no.1 demanded the balance advance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant before construction of the said machine.  The complainant had approached the UCO Bank in order to obtain term loan to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- for purchasing the said machine.  Accordingly, the complainant had approached the O.Ps to make the balance advance payment by 30.6.2013 within which date, the loan would be sanctioned in his favour.  The O.P had issued a letter on 18.7.13 claiming rental dues of Rs.90,000/-from the complainant.  The complainant had responded to the said letter of the O.Ps on 27.7.13 after his banker agreed for sanction of the loan in his favour.  But the O.Ps had not responded either to his letters, telephone calls or e.mails and even to his reminders.  After frequent contact with O.P no.1 he agreed and submitted another quotation vide quotation no.VAC/QTN/SC-2series/73 dt.11.1.19 for the same VICO High Speed Vacuum Metalizing Plant Model -SC-2000 for (4’x6;’ size Glass sheets 2m).  The price was hiked to Rs.19,85,000/-.  The complainant though agreed to and appealed for special offer of concession from the O.Ps specifying about his advances but the O.Ps had not responded in that respect.  The complainant by obtaining loan had to meet the compound interest of the bank and was eagerly waiting for the said machine which was very much required for his business.  But the O.Ps when did not respond to the complainant, he had issued legal notice to them on 27.1.22.  Ultimately, having no other way out, the complainant has filed this case before this Commission seeking direction to the said O.Ps  to supply him the machine at the negotiated price of Rs.14,50,000/- or to refund the amount calculating the bank interest @ 13.5%  for a sum of Rs.13,75,536/-.  The complainant has also sought for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards deficiency in their service and also for his business loss he has sought for an amount to a total sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.  He has also sought for a compensation from the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. 

Together with the complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents including the quotation of the O.Ps, the negotiated price and copy of the second quotation of the O.Ps and various correspondences as made.

2.         Out of the three O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.2 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.27.6.22.  However, O.Ps no.1 & 3 have contested this case and have filed their written version through which they have harped that the complainant does not fall within the definition of “consumer” here in this case, as he has intended to purchase the machine for commercial purposes only.  According to O.Ps no.1 & 3, the case is barred by limitation as there is an inordinate delay of 9 years.  They have also raised the point of jurisdiction of this Commission and have stated that the complainant had diverged from the terms and conditions of the agreement as he was supposed to pay 40% of the advance amount which he had not paid to them before the machine was to be constructed.  O.Ps had to pay rental charges for the complainant and for that they had claimed a sum of Rs.90,000/- from the complainant with effect from July,2012 to July,2013 but the complainant had not paid the same to them.  Thus, in toto the O.Ps no.1 & 3 have prayed to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainant.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.1 & 3, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the series of documents which has been annexed by the complainant together with his complaint petition, it is noticed that Annexure-3 is copy of the minutes of the meeting dt.14.3.12 where the complainant had agreed to purchase the machine for a price of Rs.14,50,000/- and was suppose to pay 40% advance to the O.Ps and thereafter to pay the balance 60% together with taxes etc before the machine is despatched to him.  The complainant himself admis to have paid an advance of Rs.4,00,000/- only and thereafter he had tried for his loan from his banker and had approached the O.Ps to make the payment within 30.6.13 by which date he would obtain his loan from his bank.  The O.Ps through their letter on 18.7.13 had demanded a sum of Rs.90,000/- towards rent out of the rental dues for one year for a sum of Rs.3,60,000/-.  The complainant as it seems had remained silent to such demand of the O.Ps but had filed his case before this Commission on 20.4.22.  When the complainant deviated from the minutes of the meeting where he had agreed to pay 40% of the quoted price of Rs.14,50,000/-, by not providing him the machine, this Commission cannot find the O.Ps to be deficient in their service towards the complainant.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps and against the complainant.

Issue no.i.

The payment of rental amount of Rs.90,000/- was asked by the O.Ps on 18.7.13.  The complainant had responded to the said letter of the O.Ps on 22.7.13 but had not sent the balance amount of advance to them nor the rental amount as claimed from him by the O.Ps.  He had filed this case on 29.4.22 and has not whispered a single word as regards to the prolonged delay of nine years in submission of the complaint petition before this Commission.  The O.Ps through their written version have urged that the complainant does not come under the definition of consumer as he was intending to purchase the said machine for commercial use.  Ofcourse, the complainant here was infact purchasing the said VICO High Speed Vacuum Metalizing Plant Model -SC-2000 for (4’x6;’ size Glass sheets 2m) machine to use it commercially.  So considering all these above facts and circumstances, this Commission comes to a conclusion that the case of the complainant cannot be said to be maintainable and accordingly this issue also goes against the complainant.

Issue no.iii.

From the discussions as made above, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps no.1 & 3 and exparte against O.P no.2 and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 17^th day of February,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                        

                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                         Member