DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 69 OF 2014

Smt. Kumini Pradhan (34 Yrs),

Propritor- Dig B Garments,

W/O- Subash Chandra Pradhan,

RO: Gandhi Chowk, PO: Gandaghora, 

PS: Brajrajnagar, Dist:Jharsuguda,Odisha…………..………..…………Complainant.

Versus

1. The Propritor of Anupama Sewing Traders,

At-635,Diamond Harbour Road,Behela,

Kolkata (W.B.)- Pin- 700 034.

2. Usha International Limited ( Sales & Service),

9, Elgin Road, Koakata-20.

3. Usha International Manufacturing Unit,

Institutional Area, Sector-32,

Gurgaon- 122 001………….………………………………..….…...Opp. Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant                          Shri N.K.Mishra, Adv. & Associates.

For the Opp. Parties                          Shri B.K.Pani, Adv. Associates.

Date of Order: 16.03.2015

Present

                                                  1. Shri S.L.Behera, President.

                                                  2. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.

                                                  3. Smt. A. Nanda, Member.

Shri S.L.Behera, President : - The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant namely Smt. Kamini Pradhan an unemployed lady on approval of the DIC,Jharsuguda for obtaining PMEGP loan for opening of a readymade garment business to earn her livelihood by means of self-employment  obtained Bank loan of Rs.14,96,000/- only on dtd. 14.03.2014. The complainant had purchased 8 nos. of various models of USHA MAKE SEWING Machine from AUNUPAMA SEWING TRADERS, Kolkata on payment of full and final payment amounting to Rs.5,13,756/- only through Bank and the said instrument were delivered by the O.P.No.1 on dtd. 30.04.2014 and the same were installed at the workshop premises of the complainant at Gandhi Chowk, Brajrajnagar on dtd. 14.05.2014 by the representative of O.P.No.1 firm Anupama Sewing Traders, Kolkata.  It is alleged that just after the installation  of the machines out of 8 nos. of sewing machine Usha- 11888 button holing machine worth of Rs.1,10,500/- only found to be defective and could not function. 

The complainant thereafter informed the said defectiveness of the product to the O.P.No.1, firm immediately for rectification of the defect on the machine several times and lastly O.P.No.1 through its letter dtd. 07.08.2014 undertake to replace the machine but due to nil stock of that model of machine showing inability to replace and agreed to provide other brands of machine within dtd. 12.08.2014. But according to the complainant no such machine has been supplied to her when old defective machine has already been handed over to the representative of the O.P.No.1.  The complainant claimed to sustained financial loss due to want of that particular button holing machine and non- supply of new one in place of defective machine already handed over to the O.P.No.1 she is bound to purchase another machine from another trader to start her workshop, hence she alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1.  Being aggrieved with the said deficient act of the O.P.No.1 the complainant prayed before this forum for a direction to the O.P.No.1 to refund the price of the said machine amounting to Rs.1,10,500/- only, Rs.3,10,000/- for business loss and interest period to the Bank, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs.    

Being notice out of 03 nos. of O.Ps. added in the complaint petition only O.P.No.1 appeared through his counsel and filed written version.  The other two O.Ps. has been set ex-parte as they did not appeared nor filed written version. Of course both the O.Ps. have no nexus with this case.  The O.P.No.1 in its written version has challenged the jurisdiction of this forum on the grounds of territorial jurisdiction also it has challenged the status of the complainant for not being a consumer as the product were purchase for commercial purpose.  The O.P.No.1 admitted to have receipt the cost of the products supplied to the complainant.  According to the O.P.No.1 as per the quotation and purchase order placed by the complainant all the products had delivered by it to the complainant at Kolkata office on dtd. 30.04.2014 in a seal condition and the breakage of the one of the machine might be during transportation from Kolkata to Brajrajnagar. According to the O.P.No.1 it is the complainant herself is responsible for the defectiveness of the machine and is not from the O.P.No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

We have perused the complainant petition written version and materials available on the record we have also gone through the documentary evidence filed by the parties.  We have also heard the argument on behalf of the parties.

Before going into the merits of the case the question of maintainability of the complaint and of the Forum raised by the O.P.No.1 should be discussed.  It is to be noted that the complainant being an unemployed lady has obtained loan under DIC scheme which is a Central Government Scheme meant for helping the unemployed persons and to make them self-employed, under that scheme Bank loan was sanctioned, sewing machine purchase through Bank and out of which one machine become defective.  All the product purchase from O.P.No.1 were having warranty/ guarantee period for one year, hence any product purchase by a person on payment of its value from any traders, if found defective and during the warranty / guarantee period can be agitated before the firm if the trader did not comply its liability, through it is not proper to accept the purchase of the product or of its use was meant for commercial purpose.  The other objection raise by the O.P.No.1 regarding maintainability of it by this Forum in our opinion can be discarded as the cause of action in part has been arisen at Gandhi Chowk, Brajrajnagar Area where all the machine were installed by the O.P.No.1’s responsibility and one of the machine found defective there.  Under the above observation we hold that the complainant to be a consumer and the complaint is maintainable before this forum.

Coming to merits of this case out of 8 nos. of sewing machine of different models meant for different purpose for making of garments on a particular machine meant for button holing worth of Rs.1,10,500/- only was found to be defective, reported the same to the O.P.No.1 and the O.P.No.1 specifically in its letter dtd. 07.08.2014 duly addressed to the complainant had admitted himself that the  supply of machine in question in the month of Aopril,2014 and during the installation of the said machine found broken as per its own admission made in the said letter to replace the machine made it proper to replace the other branch of Usha Company due to nil stock of the original model within dtd. 12.08.2014 but no such replacement was made by the O.P.No.1 despite its return to it and several correspondence made by the complainant forcing her to purchase another machine and to lodge this complaint before this Forum.  No doubt any traders if sold any product to any purchaser has obligation to rectified the defect or to replace the same during warranty period.  In this case also the returned sewing machine found to be defective during warranty period and the O.P.No.1 has undertaken to replace the same but non-replacement of the said machine from the date of handing over the same and also much period them agreed date is nothing but gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the O.P.No.1.  We accordingly hold guilty of deficiency in service to the O.P.No.1 and allow the complaint

ORDER

1. We hereby direct the O.P.No.1 to refund a sum of Rs.1,10,500/-( Rupees one lakh ten thousand five hundred) only the cost of the machine to the complainant.
2. The O.P.No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony along with compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation cost.

All the above orders are to be carried out within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which interest @ 10% per annum will be charge on the awarded amount till its realization.

            Accordingly the case is disposed of.

Order pronounced in the open court today the 16^th day of March’ 2015 and copy of this order shall be supplied to the parties as per rule.    

                                 I Agree.                            I Agree,                                                                                                        

               S.K.Ojha, Sr.Member                  A.Nanda, Member (W)                      S. L. Behera President                 

                                Dictated and corrected by me

                                     S. L. Behera, President.