DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September 2016
Present : Smt.Shiny.P.R, President
: Smt.Suma.K.P, Member
: Sri. V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
CC/83/2016
Usha Kumari : Complainant
W/o.A.V.Viswanathan,
Ushus, Karippode Post,
Pudunagaram,
Chittur Taluk - 678 503
(By Adv.Jayadevanarayanan)
Vs
Rewop Automation,
332 Light House Road,
R.S.Puram, Coimbatore,
Tamilnadu – 641 001 : Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Suma.K.P. Member.
The complainant purchased a Hydraulic Pressing Machine Semi Automatic (Floor level press) from the opposite party dated 13/2/2016 for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- and has paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on that day. The opposite party has undertaken to deliver the machinery immediately and install the same at the complainant’s business place at Usha Fibres, Idukkappara in Palakkad District. But on the contrary, the opposite party delivered the machinery nearly after two months i.e. on 8/4/2016 and installed the same with their staff on 11/4/2016. On seeing the machinery the complainant informed the opposite party that the Hydraulic Pressing Machine is small in size and is not up to the standard required for the complainant’s business performance.
The Hydraulic machine doesn’t have necessary speed and the delivery of the pressed fibre is not effectively forthcoming. As the Hydraulic Pressing Machine is small in size the desired quantity of fibre is not pressed properly.
Immediately the complainant informed the opposite party regarding the replacement of the machine. Thereafter though the complainant made several phone calls to the opposite party to replace the machinery immediately they did not care to do so and was avoiding and evading the requests. Because of the non functioning of the machinery and from 13/2/2016 the complainant suffered a loss of more than one lakh rupees till the date of notice and that it is being continued. The complainant is constrained to purchase another machine immediately to avoid further loss in her business.
The opposite party has failed to do necessary service enabling her to attain results. Though the complainant informed the opposite party on several times regarding the manufacturing defects and inadequacy of performance, the opposite party have not cared to rectify the same and satisfy the complainant. Hence caused to sent a lawyer notice dated 25/4/2016. The opposite party received it on 27/4/2016 and has not cared to rectify the defects in the machinery and to satisfy the complainant by replacing the defective machinery with a new one till this day.
Hence complainant filed this complainant praying for an order directing the opposite party to replace the defective machinery installed at complainant’s business place at Idukkapara with a new defectless Hydraulic Pressing Machine or take back the defective machine and pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid as advance with interest @12% per annum till pay or realization and pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the loss, damages, mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party.
Opposite party remained absent inspite of accepting notice from the Forum, hence they were called absent and set exparte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. She had also filed an application as IA No.330/16 for appointment of an expert commissioner to inspect the machinery installed in his establishment and to submit a report regarding the mechanical defect and defective standards, imperfection in the quality of performance and about the loss that will be caused due to the inadequate performance of the machinery installed. Application was allowed and an expert commissioner was appointed to inspect the same. The commissioner filed a detailed report after inspection.
Ext.A1 and A2 was marked from the side of the complainant. Expert commissioner report was marked as Ext.C1.
Heard.
Issues for consideration
1.Whether there is any manufacturing defects for the machinery as alleged ?
2.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party
3.If so what are cost and relief ?
Issues 1, 2 & 3
According to the complainant the machinery is small in size and is not upto the standards for her requirements. It was not properly functioning and was not meant for pressing the coconut fibres. The hydraulic machine doesn’t have necessary speed and the delivery of the pressed fibre is not effectively forthcoming as the machine is small in size, the desired quantity of fibre is not pressed properly. The complainant tried to contact the opposite party several times to replace the machinery but they did not care to do so and was avoiding and evading the request. The complainant further submits that she had to purchase another machine to avoid further loss. To prove the defect of the hydraulic machine, the complainant had taken out an expert commission and he had filed a report stating that there are some major manufacturing defects and the machine is not suitable for coconut fibre bailing process. It is revealed from Ext.A2 that the complainant had issued a lawyer notice on 25/4/2016 demanding the opposite party to rectify the defects in the machinery or to replace the defective machinery with a new one. But no reply was sent by the opposite party.
From Ext.A1 it is evident that opposite party had supplied the machine on 13/2/2016 for an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. From the available evidence produced before the Forum it is clear that the machinery supplied by the opposite party is suffering from major manufacturing defects and is not meant for complainant’s business purpose.
In view of the above facts complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite party either to replace the defective machinery with a new hydraulic pressing machine or to take back the defective machine and pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) paid as advance with interest @9% per annum till payment and also to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party alongwith Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only as cost of this proceedings.
Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is eligible for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2016.
S Sd/-
Shiny.P.R
President
S
Sd/-
Suma.K.P
Member
Sd/-
V.P.Anantha Narayanan
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Receipt issued by the opposite party dated 13/2/2016
Ext.A2 series – Copy of lawyer notice dtd.25/4/2016 with acknowledgment card and
postal receipt
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Commissioner Report
C1 – Shri.Mohammed Niyas, Mechanical Engineer
