Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/24/2019

Smt. Sanjukta Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

Propreitor of M/S Arun Engineering Works, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.N,Panda And associates

06 Jul 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 24/2019

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Smt. Sanjukta Panda,

W/O- Sri. Ramesh Chandra Panda

R/O-Ainthapali, Nr. DIET, PO-Budharaja, PS-Ainthapali

Dist-Sambalpur and Proprietor of M/S. Anu Bricks Works.  …..Complainant

 

Vrs.

Proprietor of M/S Arun Engineering Works,

Vasantdada Industrial Estate,

Plot No. 32, Chaitanya Nagar,

Dist-Sangli, Maharashtra.                                                       ….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

  1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. S.N.Panda Advocate & associates
  2. For the O.P.                                  :-         None

 

DATE OF HEARING : 31.05.2022, DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 06.07.2022

           Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

  1. The Complainant under the PMEGP availed a loan of Rs. 23,74,050/- from Punjab National Bank. Ainthapali, for installation of Fly Ash Bricks unit. The O.P. submitted its quotation for supply of the necessary machines with an assurance to provide quick sale service as the Complainant has no technical knowledge regarding the machineries. Further guarantee of one year was given by the O.P. The Complainant placed the order for installation of machineries. Vide invoice No. 003 dated 15.04.2018 the O.P. supplied the machinery with assurance of quick service and supervision during the guarantee period. ‘

The machinery was installed on 29.04.2018 but on 16.05.2018 the lower jack broke causing bending of jack rod, nuts etc. hence complaint was made, the O.P. repaired the same and disclosed the manufacturing defect.

In June 2018 the middle plate of the machine got bend and on complaint the O.P. assured to send the technician but after four months sent the technician and repaired/replaced the same. During that period the Complainant sustained heavy loss due to non running of the machine.

On 30.10.2018, the upper main jack of the machine broke and after two months, the same was repaired by the O.P. The Complainant complained to replace the whole machinery with new one but the O.P. assured that no problem will arise.

On 07.01.2019 when the main forma side of the machine broke and complaint was made, the O.P. demanded Rs. 15,000/- to the Complainant, so that the O.P. will send the defective parts and technician for replacement.

The Complainant deposited Rs. 15,000/- in the account of the O.P. as per his instruction but dispatched the machine part on 13.12.2019 having without any technician. On repeated request, the O.P. deputed one local technician namely Dillip, who visited the site and replaced the part.

Again on 12.12.2018 and 26.03.2019 six numbers of nut holding the main jack broke, complaint made but the O.P. requested to contact Dillip. Dillip inspected the machinery and replaced the nuts at the cost of Complainant. Dillip opined that as the machinery is having manufacturing defect, this type of problem will persist in future. The matter was reported to the O.P. but the O.P. did not take any action. Since 26.03.2019 the unit totally stopped working. The Complainant had placed order of a fully automatic machine but the O.P. supplied a semi automatic machine.

The Complainant sent a pleader notice on 09.04.2019, when no any action was taken by the O.P. which was received on 15.04.2019 by the O.P. but the O.P. did not respond nor replaced the defective unit nor refunded the amount.

The Complainant is overburden with loan obtained form PNB, Sambalpur.

  1. After admission of the case, notice was issued to the O.P. but the O.P. did not turn up. Accordingly on 14.08.2019, the O.P. set ex-parte.
  2. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. Vide purchase order No. AE/BM/006/2018 on 21.03.2018 the machine was purchased for an amount of Rs. 17,75,074/- from the O.P. The O.P. offered the guarantee terms for 12 months from the date of supply. Vide invoice No. 003 dated 15.04.2018 the machine was delivered and installed. The guarantee period was from 15.04.2018 to 14.04.2019. During this period a number of Complaints have been made by the Complainant. From e-mail dated 20.01.2019 it reveals that the Complaint requested the O.P. to send the mechanic with spare parts or restoration of the machine. Since 26.03.2019 the whole unit of machinery stopped working as it reveals from pleader notice dated 09.04.2019.

The Complainant placed the order for fully automatic machine but it is alleged that the machine is semi-automatic. The invoice supplied to the O.P. clearly reflects that the machine is fully automatic. Regarding specification of machine the Complainant not raised any question except in the pleader notice, nor any technical report of the expert has been submitted. From Project report it reveals that the calculation are relating to semi-automatic machine. The project report is signed by the O.P. The situation clearly reflects the negative attitude of the O.P. for promotion of its business.

The O.P. is totally silent on the complaints made. From the documents filed by the Complainant it reveals that the unit is non-functional since 26.03.2019 and within the period of guarantee.

The Complainant availed loan of Rs. 23,75,050/- with 9.7% interest and the repayment period was 60 months. Due to deficiency in service of the O.P. the unit is non-functional since 26.03.2019 and the O.P. is liable for the damages. From repeated repairing of the machinaries it can be concluded that the machinaries are defective one.

Accordingly it is ordered:-

                   ORDER

The O.P. is deficient in service and for defective machinaries the unit became non-functional. The O.P. is directed to replace the whole machineries of the unit with new one as per invoice No. 003 dated 15.04.2018 within one month from the day of receipt of this order. In case of non compliance the O.P. shall be liable to pay 9.7% interest per annum against the purchased value of the machinery i.e. Rs. 17,75,074/- w.e.f. 26.03.2019, when the whole unit became non-functional.

Towards damages the O.P. is liable to pay the estimated net earning of the Complainant as per project report w.e.f. 26.03.2019 till installation of the new machineries or payment of the aforesaid dues to the Complainant.

The O.P. is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- litigation expenses to the Complainant.

Order pronounced in open court on this 6th day of July 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.

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.