IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of May, 2016
Filed on 28.07.2011
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George, President
- Sri. Antony Xavier, Member
- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.263/2011
between
Complainant:- Opposite Party:-
Sri. C. Pankajakshan Pillai Sri. Prasanth, Proprietor
Vishnu Bhavanam Equipment Agencies
P.O. Kannamangalam – 690 106 Marketing, Export House
Chettikulangara, Mavelikara Taluk 55/2868, Ravipuram
(By Adv. C. Muraleedharan) M.G. Road, Kochi – 15
(By Adv. T.N.Maheswaran Pillai)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
This is a remanded matter. The Hon’ble State Commission directed the Forum to give an opportunity to the opposite party to file version and contest the case on merit. Accordingly we have issued notice to both parties to contest the case.
2. The case of the complainant is as follows:-
In order to set up an industrial unit to be engaged in the business of Grinding/Oil Mill with the machinery of expeller and other machines, he purchased an invoice from the opposite party on 20.2.2010 for the required machines. For setting up of the unit, he contacted M/s. Canara Bank, Mavelikara and they agreed to give adequate finance under PMEGP Scheme. As such M/s. Canara Bank had sanctioned a total loan of Rs.3,53,700/- to him. He had undergone training before the SBT., Kalavoor and obtained a certificate dated 24.12.2010. The opposite party had contacted him several times for the supply of machinery items. He spent a huge amount for the construction of building. On 30.10.2010, M/s. Canara Bank, Mavelikara had disbursed an amount of Rs.2,15,330/- on the basis of the opposite party’s invoice and opposite party had collected the said amount for the release of the machinery items and issued receipt for the said amount. But against the agreement, on 31.12.2010 the opposite party had entrusted certain items of machinery with his residence at the time of his absence in the house. When contacted, the opposite party had agreed to release the balance machinery items shortly. But so far he had not obtained the balance items of machinery, and he could not implement the unit. The Bank authorities have demanding repayment of the said loan amount. He had not obtained the working capital so far from the refusal to supply the balance machinery items. He had not obtained any positive approach from the side of the opposite party so far, hence the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
On 20.2.2010 opposite party gave a quotation which contains the details of the machines its prices to the complainant on the basis of that quotation, opposite party provided machines to the complainant. On 31.12.2010, the opposite party delivered all the machines as per the invoice to the complainant’s house and complainant received those machines also. The transporting cost and the loading cost were not yet given by the complainant. Since the expeller and rice powdering machine were small, the complainant wants to replace it. But the opposite party explained the difference of the prices and also stated that the delay in getting those machines. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1. One witness was examined as PW2. The documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 and A13. An expert report also is marked as Ext.C1. Opposite party filed proof affidavit, but no oral or documentary evidence produced from the side of the opposite party.
4. Considering the allegations of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:-
1)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) If so the reliefs and costs?
5. It is an admitted fact that the opposite party had given a quotation dated 20.02.2010 to the complainant stating the details and price of the machine. The said invoice dated 20.02.2010 is produced and marked Ext.A2 series. According to the complainant, on the basis of Ext.A2 invoice he had obtained a loan of Rs.2,15,330/- from the Canara Bank and the said amount was collected by the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the copy of the receipt dated 1.11.2010 given by the opposite party shows that he had collected a sum of Rs.2,15, 330/- from the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, in connection with account of the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party had not supplied the required machinery items to the complainant except few items, even though opposite party had accepted the amount from the total sanctioned loan to the complainant. He further alleged that since the opposite party failed to supply the required items fully, he could not start up the business. But the opposite party filed version stating that he had supplied all the machines as per the invoice to the complainant on 31.1.2011 and he has to get Rs.13,000/- towards transporting cost and loading cost. He again stated that since the expeller and rice powdering machine were smaller, he supplied the required ones in time to the complainant. During the trial stage as per the request of the complainant an expert commissioner was appointed to ascertain the number of the machines supplied and the present condition of the machines. The commission report filed is marked as Ext.C1. In Ext.C1 report the expert commissioner stated that one Rice flour machine model No.412, and Chilly flour machine model No.4122 and one 10 H.P. Motor and a Stander H.P. 15 are fitted in the complainant’s shop. He again stated that there is no symptom showing the machines were functioning, but those machines are in working condition. Opposite party has not filed any objection to the commission report.
6. From the evidence on records, it is clear that opposite party received an amount of Rs.2,15,330/- as per Ext.A1 invoice. Hence the opposite party is bound to supply the machine stated therein. But the Ext.C1 report shows that the opposite party has not supplied all machines stated in the invoice. No oral or documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to prove the contentions stated in the version. All the facts and circumstances of the case and documents produced by the complainant further shows that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating and opposite party is fully responsible for that. In this respect, we are of the view that the allegation raised by the complainant is to be treated as genuine. Since, there is deficiency in service, negligence, unfair trade practice and cheating on the side of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation from the opposite party. Hence complaint is allowed. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant.
In the result, we hereby ordered that the opposite party has to return the accepted amount of Rs.2,15,330/- (Rupees two lakhs fifteen thousand three hundred and thirty only) from the bank in connection with the a/c of the complainant, after taking back the machines already entrusted with the complainant, together with an interest of 12% per annum for the above said amount from 1.11.2010 to till the repayment of the entire amount and further ordered that the opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand only) to the complainant as compensation for his mental agony, pain, physical strain, harassment, due to the unfair trade practice and cheating on the side of the opposite party by way of grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence, cheating and purposeful refusal to deliver the machinery items fully in time, as per agreement with the complainant, even though the opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.2,15,330/- from the Bank, in connection with the account of the complainant. We further ordered that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant, and directed the opposite party to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. We further ordered that the complainant is free to proceed against the assets of the opposite party, if the opposite party has not complied with this order, within the stipulated period.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of May, 2016.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri.Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine. D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Pankajakshan Pillai (Witness)
PW2 - Anilkumar.K. (Witness)
Ext. A1 - Copy of the application dated 11.2.2010
Ext.A2 series - Copy of the invoice and details of machineries
Ext.A3 - Copy of the format for sponsoring the beneficiary for undergoing EDP
Training of the complainant
Ext.A4 - Copy of the certificate dated 24.12.2010
Ext.A5 - Copy of the letter dated 20.2.2010
Ext.A6 series - Copy of the gold loan slip (2 Nos.)
Ext.A7 - Copy of the payment receipt for Rs.2,15,330/-
Ext.A8 series - Notices dated 15.6.11 & 8.12.11 issued from Canara Bank to the complainant
Ext.A9 - Copy of the receipt dated 1.3.2010
Ext.A10 series - Receipts from KSEB Rs.6000/- & Rs.2700/- (2 Nos.)
Ext.A11 - Copy of the certificate dated 18.12.2010
Ext.A12 - Letter dated 27.09.2010 from KSEB
Ext.A13 series - Building permit dated 13.5.2010 & Site plan
Ext.C1 - Commission report
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
