Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/92/2021

Gulshan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh tools - Opp.Party(s)

A.K Vashisth

29 Aug 2023

ORDER

  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                                                            CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.     92 of 2021

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: -             23.04.2021

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -                         29.08.2023

 

Gulshan Jangra aged about 40 years son of Sh. Manohar Lal, proprietor of M.L. Jangra Traders (small scale steel mechanical work shop), Tosham Bye-pass, Near Auto Market, Bhiwani.

  

             ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

1. Rajesh Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd., through its authorized signatory, Guru Nagar, Survey No.96, Plot No.1/3/4, Village Varaval, Tal, Kotadasagani, District Rajkot, mobile no.9998927287.

 

2. Central Bank of India, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani.

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:        Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

  Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

Present:-      Shri  A.K. Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

         Shri  J.S. Soni, Advocate for OP no. 1.

         OP no. 2 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that the complainant is a skilled mechanic of installation and making of window and doors of steel and iron’s and started the work of manufacturing of doors and windows of steel to earn the livelihood and self employment through the mechanical workshop and he obtained bank loan to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- from OP no. 2 under Prime Minister Employment Generation Programme (PMEGP) Scheme and apart from this investment he has also spent rupees more than 25,00,000/- on infrastructure and also taken premises on rent for the mechanical workshop.  It is alleged that the complainant purchased two machine one Hydraulic Press Machine bearing model no.RGPX-LD-3100 size 3000m with NC for a sum of Rs.8,85,000/- and another Hydraulic Shearing Machine for a sum of Rs.5,20,000/- which was installed by the authorized engineer of the company in the month of September, 2020 at Bhiwani.  It is further alleged that the hydraulic shearing machine has no use without working of the hydraulic press machine.  It is further alleged that while complainant purchased the abovesaid machines from the OP no. 1 then the official of company assured the complainant that the machine manufactured by the company is trouble free in all respect and having no complaints till date and further assured that in any deficiency in working of the machine then the authorized engineers of the company shall visit and remove the fault if any, but the hydraulic press machine bearing model no.RGPX-LD-3100 Size 3000m with NC purchased by him is having manufacturing defect as the alignment of different parts of the machine (die punch, Bow problem, Bend problem etc.) was not upto mark and during operation of the machine most of the material was damaged due to which the complainant is suffering huge economical loss as well as mental pain and agony. 

2.                     It is further alleged that the authorized engineer of the OP no. 1 visited the mechanical workshop on 12.10.2020 and found manufacturing defect in the machine vide invoice dated 20.7.2020.  After many complaints of the complainant the OP no. 1 accepted that the Hydraulic Press Machine was having manufacturing defect and in order to replace the same with new machine on 1.3.2021 the engineer of the company installed another machine bearing model no.RD-RGNX-LD-103 size 4x3000mm with NC in the mechanical workshop of the complainant, but the replaced machine was also having same defect but to no avail and in ordered to got repair the machine complainant also hired the service of K.S. Engineering Works, New Delhi, who charged Rs.33,600/- but despite that the machine remained under the same defective condition.  It is further alleged that despite many complaint made by the complainant regarding manufacturing defect in the replaced machine and also served two legal notice respectively dated 05.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 but the OP no. 1 did not pay any heed.  It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be allowed and OPs be directed to pay:-

(a)        to replace the machine sold by the OP no. 1, with a new working machine having no manufacturing defect to the complainant alternatively to pay cost of machine amounting to Rs.8,85,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e.20.07.2020 till payment and further to pay the difference of amount of machine in present, of the same make and manufacturer, model and colour with interest as above and to pay cost of installation pertaining to Hydraulic Press Machine bearing model No.RGPX-LD-3100 size 3000 mm with NC amounting Rs.1,50,000/- alongwith interest @8% per annum from the date of invoice till payment.

(b)       To pay Rs.20,00,000/- on account of huge economical loss suffered by complainant alongwith Rs.10,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.22,000/-. 

3.                      On appearance, OP no. 1 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come with clean hands.  It is submitted that the complainant has purchased the machine for commercial purposes so he is not a consumer.  It is further submitted that on complaint made by the complainant regarding defect in the machine the engineer of the company visited several times in the workshop of the complainant and removed the defect but on the repeated request of the complainant the answering respondent had also replace the same with new machine which is still in working condition without any defect.  It is further submitted that the engineer of the answering respondent was threatened by the complainant and was locked in the room at workshop for the whole day and till date the answering respondent have not return the first machine which is replaced with new machine and both the machines are lying with their workshop.    

                        Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

4.                     No one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 2, hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.07.2021.

5.                     To prove its complaint, the counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit as Exhibit CW1/A and documents  Ex. C-1 to Ex.C-22 vide order dated 23.5.2022 and also tendered Ex. C-23 in additional evidence & closed the evidence vide his separate statement dt. 24.02.2023. Counsel for the OP no.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Annexure RW1/A and documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dated 13.01.2023. 

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and counsel for OP no. 1 and have gone through the case file minutely and carefully.  The OP no. 1 has also placed on record written arguments.  During the course of arguments, the complainant placed on record following judgments:-

1. Sudhir Gensets Ltd. and another Vs. M/s Shree Jagdamba Stone Crushers and    

          others   in Revision Petition No.71 of 2020 (against the order dated 05/11/2009    

          in Appeal No.2300/2007 of the State Commission, Haryana) D/d 3.12.2021 of    

           Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

2. M/s Nandan Biomatrix Ltd. Vs. S. Ambika Devi & Ors. In Civil Appeal Nos.7357-7376 of 2010 D/d 6.3.2020 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
3. Venus Auto Traders & Anr. Vs. Gulfam in First Appeal no.383 of 2010, D/d 25.5.2015 of Uttarkhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.
4. Action Construction Equipment Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Bablu Mridha in Revision Petition No.2079 of 2012 alongwith I.A. No. 1 of 2012 (for stay) against order dated 27.4.2012 in S.C. Case No.F.A./312 of 2011 of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal D/d20.7.2012.
5. Abhaya Kumar Panda Vs. Bajaj Auto Limited in First Appeals No.83 and 90 of 1991. D/d 10.12.1991 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

7.                     The grievance of the complainant is that the Hydraulic press machine bearing model no.RGPX-LD-3100 size 3000m wit NC is having manufacturing defect as the alignment of different parts of the machine (die punch, bow problem, bend problem etc.) was not upto mark.  The authorized engineer of the OP no. 1 visited the mechanical workshop on dated 12.10.2020 and found manufacturing defect in the machine vide invoice dated 20.7.2020 as Exhibit C-1.  The OP no. 1 accepted that the Hydraulic Press Machine was having the manufacturing defect and in order to replace the same with new one on dated 1.3.2021 but the replaced machine was also having same defect.  The complainant made several complaints regarding manufacturing defect and also served two legal notice dated 5.3.2021 as Exhibit C-22 and dated 26.3.2021 as Exhibit C-21 but OP no. 1 did not pay any heed.  The complainant produced various documents e-way bill no.6912 0486 7081 as Exhibit C-2,  tax invoice dated 20.7.2020 as Exhibit C-3, e-way bill no.6312 0486 5681 as Exhibit C-4, loan amount sent to Central bank of India as Exhibit C-5 to Exhibit C-7, tax invoice dated 25.7.2020 as Exhibit C-8, job card dated 12.10.2020 as Exhibit C-9, machine installation report as Exhibit C-10, invoice dated 14.9.2020 as Exhibit C-11, tax invoice dated 15.9.2020 as Exhibit C-12, tax invoice dated 21.8.2020 as Exhibit C-13 and Exhibit C-14, status of payment of Rs.27225/- as Exhibit C-15, delivery report dated 9.1.2021 of Dinesh Goods Transport Co. as Exhibit C-16, invoice dated 4.4.2021 as Exhibit C-17, Aadhar card as Exhibit C-18, statement of account no.3806978937 as Exhibit C-19 and statement of account no.3848127647 as Exhibit C-20.  The complainant also produced on record replaced machine CD bearing model no. RD-RGNX-LD-103 size 4x3000 mm with NC as Exhibit C-23.  But the grievances of the complainant are still pending. 

8.                     The grievance of the OP no. 1 is that the complainant has purchased the machine for commercial purposes so he is not a consumer.  It is submitted that the engineer of the company visited several times in the workshop of the complainant and removed the defect and also replace the machine with new one.   The OP no. 1 not produced any cogent and sufficient evidence to prove his case.   No one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 2, hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.7.2021.  The counsel for OP no. 1 placed on record tax invoice dated 20.7.2020 as Annexure R-1, tax invoice dated 20.7.2020 as Annexure R-2, tax invoice dated 27.2.2021 as Annexure R-3 and machine service report as Annexure R-4.  The counsel for OP no. 1 has also placed on record following judgments:-

(i)        Bhardwaj Industries Vs. Premier Ltd. & Anr. in Consumer Complaint No.304 of 2013. D/d 4.10.2013 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

(ii)       Jcb India Ltd. Vs. Mallappa Sangappa Mantri & Anr. in Revision Petition No.4260 of 2010 from order dated 18.8.2010 in Appeal No.4099 of 2009 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore D/d 1.8.2012.

(iii)      Shakti Engineering Works & Anr. Vs. Sri Krishna Coir Rope Industry Rep. by its Proprietor P. Krishnaiah in First Appeal No. 415 of 1995 D/d 8.8.2000 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

9.                     We have minutely perused the documents and authorities placed on record by both the parties, it has been specifically mentioned in the complaint of the complainant that he install these machines for his livelihood. The OP no. 1 is instructed that the complainant took a loan from the bank and then took machines to start self-employment, the machine turned out to be defective and after the complaint of the complainant, another machine was changed with old one and that machine also had a manufacturing defect.   The complainant has placed on record the mechanic report Exhibit C-10 mentioning therein that the machine not working properly.  In view of the aforesaid discussion, we have come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 1 by allowing the present complaint against the OP no. 1 with the direction as follows:-

(a)        The respondent no. 1 is directed to pay the cost of the hydraulic press brake machine i.e. Rs.8,85,000/- and cost of the hydraulic shearing machine i.e. Rs.5,20,000/- total Rs.14,05,000/- (Rupees fourteen lac five thousand only) with 9% interest from the date of  filing of the complaint to the complainant and the amount be credited in the account of the complainant as provided by the complainant i.e. A/c no. 3790286338 in Central Bank of India, Ghantaghar Chowk, Bhiwani i.e. OP no. 2 and the complainant is directed to return the purchased machine to the respondent no. 1.  The complainant is directed to pay the installments of loan amount regularly.

(b)       The OP no. 1 is ordered to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to Gulshan Jangra complainant for the economic losses, mental agony and harassment he incurred due to the malfunctioning machine.

(c )       The Commission also awarded a compensation of Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) to Gulshan Jangra for the litigation expenses.

                        The Commission decision is based on protecting the consumer’ rights and ensuring fair compensation for the economic and emotional distress caused due to the  defective machine.

10.                   This order be complied within a period of 30 days.  A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: -29.08.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                           (Saroj Bala Bohra)                

   Member.                            Presiding Member,

District Consumer Disputes                    District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Commission, Bhiwani    Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

 

Present:-      Shri  A.K. Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

         Shri  J.S. Soni, Advocate for OP no. 1.

         OP no. 2 exparte.

 

 

                  Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

               

Dt:29.08.2023    Member.           Presiding Member,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.