Order No:14
Today is fixed for delivery of judgment/final order.
Final order is ready. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission.
It is ordered that,
That the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The OP is directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- only with interest @ 8% p.a. w..e.f. 26.02.2020 and complainant is directed to return the defective machine along with raw materials to the OP within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- only for harassment and mental agony caused to complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after 60 days if the orders are not complied with within the stipulated period as aforesaid.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website:
www.confonet.nic.in.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
SOUTH 24-PARGANAS
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C.NO._47_ OF 2021
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER
26.03.2021 08.04.2021 18.05.2022
Present : President : Ashoke Kumar Pal
Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman
Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANTS : 1. Sri Rupam Karmakar, S/O Arup Karmakar
residing at Nabadwip, Halderpara 2 No Lane Prachin Mayapur, P.O. & P.S. – Nabadwip,
Pin – 741 302.
Versus
O.P/O.Ps :1. Proprietor of Namrata Enterprise,
(Represented by Tarun Mondal) of
i)Bhurkul, Kalinagar, P.S.-Baruipur,
District-South 24 Parganas, Pin-743 610.
ii) Prasadpur Natun Bazar,
P.O.– Kustia, P.S.-Sonarpur, Kolkata-700 150.
Smt. Sangita Paul, Member
This is a case filed by Rupam Karmakar, S/o. Arup Karmakar against Tarun Mondal, Proprietor of Namrata Enterprise with a prayer for a direction to the OP to refund Rs.1,50,000/- only to complainant for the purchase of machine, raw material with 6% interest, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- only to the complainant for harassment and suffering from mental pain, agony and financial loss.
The Opposite Party is Tarun Mondal of Bhurkul, Kalinagar, P.S. – Baruipur, Dist.-24 Parganas (South), Pin – 743 610. Another address of OP is Prasadpaur, Naturn Bazar, P.O. – Kustia, P.S. – Sonarpur, Kolkata – 700 150. Tarun Mondal is the proprietor of Namrata Enterprise.
Complainant, by filing this case, states that OP is a company which provides service under the companies Act, 1956. OP published an advertisement through You Tube. OP’s Company, Namarata Enterprise is manufacturer and seller of Agarbati i.e. incense stick. The company also manufactures machine of preparing incense stick. Complainant contacted with Tarun Mondal. Trun Mondal, on behalf of Namrata Enterprise, gave the details of the cost of machine. OP gave an estimate of the cost of the machine and raw material for making incense sticks. After getting the details of the cost, complainant agreed to purchase the said machine and raw material for maintaining his livelihood. And complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- only to the OP. In spite of making full payment, the OP did not deliver the machine. Therefore, complainant made several calls. After several persuasion, the OP delivered the machine. The machine was an automatic – agarbati –preparing machine. It was delivered on 26.02.2020. Complainant found that the said machine costs Rs.59,000/- only along with GST. The amount was written on the tax invoice but OP took Rs.1,05,000/- only from complainant. Complainant informed the OP that the machine looked like an old machine and OP took extra money. Complainant asked the OP to return the extra amount. But the OP did not agree to return the extra money paid by complainant. After 10 days of installation, the machine stopped working. The machine had 1 year warranty. OP was called by complainant but OP did not respond. In the month of August, 2020, OP received complainant’s call again and heard about the complaint. OP asked complainant to send a car to pick up the technician from the office of the OP. Complainant sent a car for technician to come. But the OP misbehaved with complainant and did not send the technician. Complainant informed this matter to the president of the committee of incense-stick-makers. Mr. Asutosh Das, but did not get any fruitful result. Thereafter OP agreed to change the said machine. After spending a lot of money for renting a car, complainant got another machine. Tarun Mondal and Asutosh Das assured that the machine would be a good one. But after 4 days, the machine stopped working. Complainant informed Tarun Mondal, the proprietor of Namrata Enterprise, but the problem remained the same. After making full payment, complainant could not use the machine. The OP failed to provide proper service. The acts of OP tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant faced huge monetary loss and mental suffering. Complainant told the OP to return his money, but the OP did not. Complainant applied before CA & FBP, 24 Pgs (South) but the mediation failed. As a result, complainant lodged the case before Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
The address of OP is very well within the jurisdiction of the Ld. Commission. The cause of action starts from 26.02.2020 i.e. from the date of delivery of machine and is still continuing.
In the facts and circumstances, complainant prays for refunding Rs.1,50,000/- only to complainant along with 6% interest for the delayed payment, for paying Rs.1,00,000/- only for harassment and suffering from mental pain and agony and financial loss.
Notice was sent to the OP on 30.11.2021. Complainant files photocopy of postal receipts along with postal track report showing due service of notice on 12.10.2021 and 08.11.2021 at two different addresses of the Op. None appears on behalf of the OP. Hence the case proceeded exparte against the OP. On 07.04.2022 BNA was filed by complainant and on 19.04.2022 argument was heard. And we proceeded for giving judgement.
Points of Consideration
- Is the complainant a consumer?
- Is the OP guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice?
03.Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decisions with Reasons
- Complainant is an unemployed youth. By seeing an advertisement, complainant came to know of Namrata Enterprise. The institution is the manufacturer and seller of incense sticks. Complainant contacted with the concerned authority, i.e. Tarun Mondal, proprietor of Namrata Enterprise. Complainant came to know that the cost of the machine was Rs.1,05,000/- and cost of raw material was Rs.45,000/- Complainant agreed to purchase the said machine and raw material for maintaining his livelihood. Complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- only. The tax invoice of Namrata Enterprise shows that complainant made payment on 26.02.2020 along with 9% of CGST and SGST, Altogether complainant paid Rs.59,000/- only. Another payment of balance amount was also made through bank. Thus complainant made full payment and the machine along with raw material were delivered to complainant’s house. OP did not contradict complainant’s statement. As complainant made full payment, complainant is a consumer. So, the 1st point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant bought a machine of preparing incense sticks along with raw material. Complainant made payment of Rs.1,50,000/- only. Machine was sent to the complainant by the OP Namrata Enterprise. From the tax invoice it appears that the machine costs Rs.59,000/- only. But the OP took Rs.1,50,0000/- only for the machine and raw material. It is nothing but unfair trade practice, because the OP failed to produce any money receipt for Rs.46,000/- i.e. Rs.1,05,000/- - Rs.59,000/- = Rs.46,000/-. OP delivered a defective machine to complainant, after payment of Rs.1,05,000/- only. The machine stopped working after 10 days. The machine had 1-year warranty. Complainant called the OP. Neither OP responded to complainant’s phone call, nor OP refunded the extra money amounting Rs.46,000/- only which was taken from complainant, without giving any money receipt. OP did not send any technician to repair the manufacturing defect. After few days, complainant was informed by the OP that they would change the machine. OP changed the machine; it was brought to complainant’s house by car. After 4 days the said machine stopped working. Complainant could not use the machine. He could not earn even by spending a considerable amount of money. Thus it appears that the OP neglected to provide proper service-what the OP stated, regarding the machine and was a blatant lie. Complainant could not use the machine, raw materials were not properly utilized. Those are dumped in complainant’s house. The act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Complainant faced mental sufferings and harassment. Complainant faced huge financial loss. Complainant did not get any return of his money. He could not start his work for maintaining his livelihood. OP did not work according to their promise, made at the time of purchasing the machine. Hence, OP is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the 2nd point is settled in favour of complainant.
- Complainant faced huge financial loss after purchasing the machine for preparing incense sticks and the raw material. Complainant was given a defective machine, but OP did not want to replace it. After several persuasion, OP changed the machine with a hope that at the 2nd time, complainant would be given a defect-free new machine. But the OP again gave a defective and old machine by taking money of a new machine. Not only that he has taken extra amount of Rs.46,000/- for which he failed to produce any money receipt. Thus complainant faced huge financial loss. Being a service provider, O.P. failed to render proper service to complainant. Even complainant could not contact with him when it was urgent. For this purpose, complainant had to spend Rs.1,50,118/- only. In return complainant could not run the machine, could not utilize the raw material and could not earn anything to maintain his livelihood. Complainant was also harassed by the OP several times. Hence, complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation for his suffering and financial loss. So, the 3rd point is settled in favour of complainant.
In the result, the complainant succeeds to prove his case as made out exparte.
Hence, it is,
ORDERED
that the instant complaint case be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The OP is directed to refund Rs.1,50,000/- only with interest @ 8% p.a. w..e.f. 26.02.2020 and complainant is directed to return the defective machine along with raw materials to the OP within 60 days from the date of this order.
OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- only for harassment and mental agony caused to complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the order into execution after 60 days if the orders are not complied with by the O.P. within the stipulated period as aforesaid.
Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned.
The final order will also be available in the following website:
www.confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and Corrected by me:
Sangita Paul
Member
