BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.86 OF 2016 AGAINST CC NO.291 OF 2015
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD
Between:
S.Narasimha Rao (party-in-person)
S/o S.Narsimham, aged 33 years,
R/o Plot No.33, Varadaiah Colony,
Kunthur Road, Near City Model School,
Hayathnagar, Hyderabad – 501 505.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
Sai Siri Enterprises,
No.8-1-25, Flat No.103,
Street No.5, Rukmini Krishna Complex,
Koneru Street, Opp: Sai Baba Temple,
Secunderabad – 500 003.
…Respondent/Opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondent : Returned unclaimed-Deemed served
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Nineteenth day of April
Two thousand Seventeen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
This is an appeal filed by the Complainant dissatisfied by the orders of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad dated 11.02.2016 made in CC No.291 of 2015 in partly allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite party to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.60,000/- paid towards the cost of coil machine and Rs.2,000/- towards costs granting time of (30) days. In case of non-compliance within the stipulated time, ordering interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.60,000/- from the date of default till the date of realization.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant approached the Opposite party after seeing their advertisement for coil winding machines and after discussing with it and convinced by their promises to train him in operating the machine and buy-back offer made by the Opposite party, the complainant decided to buy one machine for fan regulator coil winding machine and paid an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards advance. Subsequently, the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- and Rs.15,000/- into the account of the OP on 07.05.2015 in State Bank of India, Autonagar branch at Vanasthalipuram.
4) The Opposite party delivered the machine alongwith raw material for 25 coils and deputed its technician for installation and training the complainant. The technician has just winded off the coil and asked complainant to wind the remaining half and left the place, for which complainant was charged at Rs.600/-. Complainant was carried-away by the words of Opposite party that they will buy back 2000 coils per month @ Rs.9/- per coil. The machine supplied by the Opposite party is purely a manually operated machine and winding is done in a slow pace if at an average he winds 25 coils per day, he will be getting Rs.225/- which would be sufficient for transporting the finished goods from Hayathnagar to opposite party at Secunderabad.
5) The complainant narrated the same to OP and requested to take-back the machinery supplied by them and refund his money after some nominal deduction, for which OP referring to agreement clauses has agreed to take back the machinery and issue a post dated cheque for Rs.45,000/- dated 14.03.2016. The machinery supplied is a manually operated machine and complainant will never be able to reach breakeven point leave alone making any profit. Complainant realized that the machine cannot be updated and not even earn interest on his investment which he has done by raising loans from friends and relatives with hope that he would earn for his livelihood by believing the false promise of the opposite party. Hence the complaint to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental ago and pain caused; to refund Rs.60,000/- paid by the complainant towards cost of the machinery; to pay other incidental charges to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.
6) Opposite party though served with notice was called absent.
7) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A4.
8) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.291/2015 by orders dated 11.02.2016, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.
9) Dissatisfied by the above orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) failed to consider the relief in proper perspective; (b) failed to consider the purport, intent and the effect of financial burden the Appellant had been put to by the respondent and has only granted the relief of refund of the amount paid ignoring the interest for the amount paid to procure the defective machinery by way of obtaining loans from relatives and friends; (c) failed to consider the compensation for the time lost without any work, by setting-up a fan coil winding unit and earn upto Rs.20,000/- to Rs.30,000/- p.m. having quit the job to establish unit on his own; (d) failed to consider the trauma and agony complainant had gone through for not able to commence the business as the machine supplied was not designed to roll the number of coils. Hence, prayed to allow the appeal and consider the relief of interest and compensation.
10) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
11) Even in this appeal, the Respondent though served with notice, remained absent and did not choose to make its appearance.
12) It is not in dispute that the Appellant had purchased the fan coil winding machine for a consideration of Rs.60,000/- from the Respondent under Ex.A3. It is the case of the appellant that lured by the advertisement of the Respondent, he purchased the coil winding machine from the Respondent which would give production of more than 2000 units per month on the assurance that if the purchaser wants to return the machine, the Respondent would pay back the amount as contained in the agreement, which created confidence in the mind of Appellant.
13) To the surprise of the Appellant, the machine could not work as expected as the same is manually operated one. It was also assured by the Respondent to provide raw material and the workers for manufacture of the fan starter coil and also the raw material at a cost of Rs.9/- per coil. The intent and purport of the Respondent is in order to sell the coil winding machine and extract work from the gullible purchasers like the appellant at a cheaper cost. Though it was assured by the respondent to give the production of 2000 units per month, it could not. It is the specific case of the appellant that since the machine is a manually operated one, he cannot reach the breakeven point at any time. Considering the case of the appellant in a sympathetic manner, the forum below allowed the complaint ordering refund of the cost of the machine within stipulated time and on failure, to pay interest @ 9% p.a. which requires no interference.
14) We may state that any further examination of the matter will destroy the case of the appellant since the forum below had considered the matter sympathetically. We may state that the Appellant purchased the machine under dispute on 01.05.2015 and lodged the complaint on 05.06.2015. As per the Ex.A1 Agreement, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.45,000/- on return of the machine on or before 14.06.2015, that too in the form of post dated cheque. Admittedly, there is no record as to the malfunctioning of the machine supplied and the Appellant making any complaint to that effect to the Respondent. Even it is not the case of the appellant that the machine is not functioning properly. Viewed from any angle, as stated supra, we do not find any infirmities in the orders passed by the forum below. Accordingly, we answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.10, supra, against the Appellant.
15) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, no costs. Time for compliance: 4 weeks.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dated 19.04.2017
