Complaint filed on:16-12-2019
Disposed on: 02-03-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
CC.No.186/2019
DATED THIS THE 2nd DAY OF MARCH, 2022
PRESENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc.(Agri), MBA, L.L.B, PRESIDENT (I/c)
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Parthasarathi
S/o late Doddarangappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/o. Doddanaravanala village
(Doddanavangala)
at post, Bellavi hobli,
Tumakuru taluk
(By Sri.Sundararamu.D.R, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
M/s S.L.Engineering Works,
Plot No.230, Auto Complex,
3rd Main Road, Sagar Road,
SHIVAMOGGA-577204
Rep. by its Partners
Sri.Santhosh
Sri.Prakash
(OP Nos.1 and 2-by Sri.Zafrulla Khan, Advocate)
ORDER
SRI.KUMARA.N, PRESIDENT (I/c)
This complaint was filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the Opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) to refund the amount of Rs.3,97,600-00 paid on 28-1-2019 towards the purchase of Arecanut Leaf Plant Pressing Machine, and to take back the defective machine. Further prayed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000-00 towards the damages, mental harassment, agony and loss of monitory benefit due to purchase of default machine with interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase of defective machine till its realization.
2. It is the case of complainant that, he has purchased Arecanut Leaf Plant Pressing Machine on 21-1-2019 from the OPs by paying Rs.3,97,600-00. In turn the OPs assured good working of the said machine and service of the same, if any faults or problems, accordingly the OPs installed the said machine in complainant place. After 15 days the complainant noticed that the said machine not functioning, as a result the complainant called the OPs many times over phones but the OPs not replied, as a last chance the complainant met the OPs personally at manufacturing/office of OPs. The OPs assured that they will rectify the defects in the machine. But the OPs not attended the faults of the machine and rectify. On 4-10-2019 issued legal notice to OPs but the OPs not replied nor rectified the faults of the machine. Hence, this complaint.
3. The OPs in response to the notice appeared through their learned counsel and filed version, admitting the said machine supplied to the complainant on 21-1-2019 and in turn the complainant paid Rs.3,97,600-00. The OPs further submitted that ours is manufacturing firm having technology and using good raw material in manufacturing such machines, so far we have not received any complaint from anyone except this complainant. The OPs submits that this defects is due to functioning of said machine by unqualified persons of complainant and there is no defects in the machine. Due to the complainant negligence the said machine not functioning properly, this complaint is filed by complainant to harass and tarnish our image in the market. Hence, the OPs prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.
4. The complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced Exs.P1 to P7 documents. The 2nd OP Sri.Prakash, partner has filed affidavit evidence.
5. We have heard the oral arguments of complainant and in spite of granting sufficient time OPs counsel has not advanced the arguments and the points that would arise for determination are as under:
1) Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the affirmative
Point No.2: In the affirmative for the below
REASONS
7. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant argued that, the complainant for his livelihood purchased the Arecanut Leaf Plant Pressing Machine by paying Rs.3,97,600-00 and spent money for establishing the business. The OPs supplied defective machine which was not functioning properly. To rectify the same the complainant approached the OPs many times and even visited their office personally but the OPs not turned up and as a result the complainant suffered.
8. The complainant produced Ex.P1 and Ex.P6 which were copies and original tax invoice dated 21-1-2019 of OPs given to complainant wherein the complainant paid Rs.3,97,600-00 towards purchase of Arecanut Leaf Plant Pressing Machine. Exs.P2 to P5 were the complainant’s documents it is copy of legal notice, postal acknowledgement and postal track of said notice served to OPs. Further the complainant produced bank voucher dated 21-2-2019 for Rs.40,000-00 wherein the complainant paid to the said amount to the 1st OP.
9. The OP defense of said machine not performing which is due to said machine not operated by qualified person.
10. Deficiency of Service; Section 2 (11) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines Deficiency of Service as “any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service and includes (a) any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person to the consumer and (b) deliberate withholding of relevant information by such person to the consumer.” The term ‘defect’ is defined under Section 2 (10) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as “any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under and law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or products and the expression ‘defective’ shall be construed accordingly.
11. In the above discussion and by considering the defense taken by the OPs that qualified person to be handled the machine, this commission is in the opinion of such specific notes not served to the complainant and the OP not produced any believable material evidence to prove the same. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
The OPs are directed to take back the default machine supplied to the complainant and refund Rs.3,97,600-00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, along with 6% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of complaint i.e. 16-2-2019, otherwise, it carries interest @ 10% per annum from the date of complaint till its payment.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 2nd day of March, 2022).
LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT (I/c)
