Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/255/2015

Found Equip Services rep by Managing Partner Guru Prasath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramprasad Tubes & Bars P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

B. Ravi-Applt

09 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                     PRESIDENT

                                                TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                       MEMBER 

 

F.A.No.255/2015

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.395/2012, dated 21.05.2013 on the file of the District Commission, Coimbatore)

 WEDNESDAY, THE 09^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022.

 

1.    M/s.  Found Equip Services,

       Represented by its Managing Partner,

       No.7, Iyappa Nagar,

       Thanneer Pandal,

       Peelamedu,

       Coimbatore – 641 004                                     1^st Appellant/1^st Opposite Party

 

 

2.    Mr. Guruprasad,

       Managing Partner,

       Found Equip Services,

       No.7, Iyappa Nagar,

       Thanneer Pandal,

       Peelamedu,

       Coimbatore – 641 004                                                     2^nd  Appellant/2^nd Opposite Party

    

                                         

                    - Vs –

 

1.   M/s. Ramprasad Tubes & Bars (P) Ltd.,

      Represented by its Authorised Officer &

      Administrative Manager,- Mr. R. Selvaraj,

      818/1, Samanyakanpalayam,

      No.4, Veerapandi Post,

      Coimbatore -  641 004.                                   1^st Respondent/Complainant

 

2.   Mr. Jegannathan,

      Found Equip Services,

      No.7, Iyappa Nagar,

      Thanneer Pandal,

      Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004.                   2^nd  Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party

 

 

3.   Jhorge

      Found Equip Sercvices,

      No.7, Iyyappa Nagar,

      Thanneer Pandal,

      Peelamedu,

      Coimbatore – 641 004                                      3^rd Respondent/4^th opposite party 

 

 

Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties 1 & 2:  M/s. B. Ravi, Advocate.  

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent/Complainant        :  M/s  Jeyaratchagan, Advocate.

For the Respondents 2 & 3                                 :  Given up  

 

             This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 27.12.2021 and on hearing the arguments of the appellants’ side and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT. 

1.     This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.395/2012,dated 21.05.2013, allowing the complaint.        

2.      For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coimbatore.          

3.       The brief facts which are necessary to decide this appeal is as follows;-

          The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that they are carrying on manufacturing Grey Iron & SG Iron Castings works for the past eight years and they used to provide high quality products at the lowest price to their customers.  The complainant intended to purchase a Dust Collector – 15000 cu.mts/Hr with Blower 40 HP. & 20 F .t.  Chimney & Silo Vent Filter – 26 sq. mtr (Shaker Type) machines from the market for which quotations were invited from the manufacturers of the aforesaid machines. The 1^st opposite party is one of the manufacturers of the foundry equipments. On behalf of the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party, as a managing partner approached the complainant and offered to provide the aforesaid machines in good quality for the lowest price. Believing the words of the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant placed a Purchase Order dated 08.02.2011 for Dust Collector – 15000 Cu.Mts/Hr capacity with blower 40 H.P. & 20 F.T. Chimney and 26Sq.Mtr.Silo Vent Filter (Shaker Type) machines towards a total sum of Rs.11,07,000/-. The opposite parties received 20% as advance amount through Cheque and promised to deliver the said machines on 15.03.2011. Subsequently, the opposite parties failed to deliver the same in time. After several reminders through phone calls as well as emails, the opposite parties finally delivered the machines only on 11.05.2011, nearly after a delay of two months. The complainant sustained heavy loss due to the delay caused by the opposite parties. The complainant settled the entire balance amount as per the Invoice No.000014, dated 12.06.2011.  At the end of August, the Dust Collector machine started to give problem to the complainant and finally the said machine was not working from 02.09.2011 and hence the complainant informed the opposite parties about the breakdown of the Dust-Collector machine orally and as well as through several e-mails and letters dated 30.09.2011 & 08.11.2011; but there was no response from the opposite parties.  Due to the act of the opposite parties, the complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony. After repeated demands made by the complainant, the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties attended the meeting held on 23.11.2011 at the complainant’s premises and thereby admitted their defects in the said machines and promised to return back the sum of Rs.8,83,179/- towards the cost of the Dust-Collector machine in three instalments as per the resolution passed in Minutes of Meeting.  Per contra, all of sudden, the 2^nd opposite party sent an Email, dated 14.12.2011 to the complainant stating that the complainant has no right to get any Cash Back Guarantee towards the equipments and the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- per day as service charge and further informed that the amount would be refunded only after selling the equipment or in 24 months instalments. The attitude of the opposite parties would clearly show the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have also sent a letter admitting their default by accepting the resolution, dated 23.11.2011 passed in the Minutes of Meeting conducted by the complainant’s company. Thereafter, the opposite parties never turned up to return the cost of the Dust Collector machine. Hence, the complainant approached the District Consumer Commission with a consumer complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to return Rs.8,83,179/- being the cost of the equipment with 24% interest per annum from 02.09.2011 till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony.                    

4.        Denying the complaint allegations, the opposite parties have filed a joint written version contending inter-alia that it is true that the opposite parties have supplied a machine, Dust Collector – cu mts /Hr with Blower 40 H.p; & 20 F.T. chimney & Silo went Filter – 26 sq mtr (shaker type), the value of the said machine is Rs.11,07,000/- and a discount of 7.5% on the value was agreed and an advance of 20% of Rs.2,25,000/- was received  from the complainant on 08.02.2011 through cheque. The period of delivery is from 6 to 8 weeks.  But, for the reasons of electricity power crisis and due to specific changes in spare-parts required and instructed by the complainant, a delay of two months was caused to effect the delivery.  Therefore, the reasons for the delay cannot be attributed against the opposite parties.  The opposite parties delivered the machine only on 11.05.2011 after giving a satisfactory trail run of the machine. After having used the machine for more than 4 months, the complainant had come up with the complaint of trouble in the machine. The opposite parties always used to erect the machine with their own technical people in the purchaser’s industrial premises. But the complainant after having taken delivery of the machine was not patient enough to engage the opposite party to commission the erection work. The complainant got the machine erected only through their unskilled labourers who were non-technical. When it came to the knowledge of the complainant, the opposite parties objected for the same and also warned the complainant with regard to future problem in functioning of the machinery. In such a situation, after a period of 4 months from the date of erection, the complainant had informed that the machinery was not working.  But, the opposite parties have rendered their service to rectify the defects as and when required and called. Though the machinery was erected by the unskilled labourers of the complainant, the opposite parties provided all their support to rectify the machinery for its effective function. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and hence, the complaint has to be dismissed.                       

5.      Before the District Commission, in order to prove their respective case, both parties have filed their own proof affidavits in support of their case.  Exhibits A1 to A18 were marked on the side of the complainant and no Exhibit was marked on the side of the opposite parties.    

6.        Based on the above submissions and analysing the evidences adduced by them, the District Commission allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and directed them to return Rs.8,83,179/- being the cost of the Dust Collector to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service with cost of Rs.1000/-  within a period of two moths.  Aggrieved over the order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal praying for setting aside the same.  

7.        Heard the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and perused the materials available on record. The main grievance of the complainant is that a Dust Collector machine was supplied to them on 12.05.2011 by the opposite parties and within a period of 4 months, the same started to give problem. According to the complainant, since the problem occurred within the period of 4 months from the date of supply of the machine, it would clearly show that the defective machine was supplied by the opposite parties.     

8.      Per contra, it is the contention of the opposite parties that normally the machinery is to be erected by the labourers of the opposite parties.  But, in the instant case, the complainant had not allowed the labourers of the opposite parties to erect the machine. The complainant erected the machine by their own unskilled labourers which resulted in problem.  From the submissions made on by both side, it is clear that the machine was not functioning properly.  Though the opposite parties had stated that the problem had occurred only due to the erection of the machine with the help of unskilled labourers of the complainant, no tangible evidence was produced by the opposite parties to prove the same. Therefore, by merely accepting the pleadings of the opposite parties, the case of the complainant cannot be rejected when the opposite parties themselves have agreed to repay the amount by making endorsement in the resolutions passed in the Minutes of Meeting dated 23.11.2011 held in the complainant’s company.  On perusal of the documents, Ex A14, the Minutes of Meeting dated 23.11.2011,  we find that the opposite parties have agreed to repay the cost of the machine.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the machine as agreed in Ex A14.  Accordingly, the District Commission has rightly decided the issue and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties and directed as stated supra and therefore, we do not find any compelling circumstances warranting this Commission to make interference in the order of the District Consumer Commission.

10.             In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.395/2012, dated 21.05.2013.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.

                                                      

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                              R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                              PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Jan/2022