DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: BHADRAK : (ODISHA).
Consumer Complaint No. 60 of 2023.
Date of hearing : 03.10.2023.
Date of order : 18.12.2023.
Dated the 18th day of December 2023.
Santosh Kumar Kuanar, S/o:- Suresh Kuanar,
At:-Budanga, Po:- Dolasahi, P.S:-Tihidi, Dist:- Bhadrak,
Odisha, Pin-756127, Mob.No.-6371067540.
………….. Complainant.
-:Versus:-
Sanjay Kumar Verma, Director,
Owner of Suvidha Manufacturing India,
CB-87, Naraina Ring Road, Pillar No.-8A,
New Delhi-110028,
Mob.No.-9899007300, 9811985698 & 98710022939,
.…………Opposite party.
P R E S E N T S.
1. Sri Shiba Prasad Mohanty, President,
2. Smt. Madhusmita Swain, Member.
Counsels appeared for the parties.
For the Complainant : Sri B.K. Khilar, Advocate& Associate,
For the Opp. Party : Anupama Sethi, Advocate.
J U D G M E N T.
SRI SHIBA PRASAD MOHANTY, PRESIDENT.
In the matter of an application filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against the Opposite Parties under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Fact of the case is that, the complainant is an educated unemployed person. The complainant has set up a tiny scale industry business & contacted DIC, Bhadrak and got plan of Paper Plate Business & for that he searched in Internet about the machineries & found the O.P. in Internet, whose company is providing all Equipments & Parts so also Accessories of Paper Industry and Plan & Programme and DATA. The complainant was contacted by the O.P. given assurance to co-operate in every aspect to set up the unit. After getting assurance from O.P. the complainant availed a PMEGP Loan from Bank of Baroda, Bhadrak Branch. The O.P. asked the complainant to pay the cost of Hydraulic Machine & all machineries, parts & other equipment, then all the accessories will be sent through Transport. Transport cost will be borne by the O.P. The complainant sent the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- through UPI (Four times) in between 18.07.2022 to 21.07.2022. After getting the amount of Rs.1,10,000/- the O.P. Company sent Hydraulic Machine & Raw Material through Transport whose cost is Rs.47,200/-. But other parts & equipments were not sent by the O.P. The complainant contacted the O.P. to send other articles. O.P. has given assurance to send immediately but did not send the same. After two months complainant went to the Office of the O.P. to enquire about the machinery & equipments. The O.P. assured him to send those within 15 days. But till now the O.P. has not sent the articles. To set up the factory complainant had taken a house on rented basis cost of Rs.5,000/- per month & security of Rs.50,000/- has already been paid to the house owner. Complainant build up Interior Set up of the factory by spending around Rs.1,50,000/-. Complainant had also purchased some Raw materials for production of Paper Plate by paying Rs.40,000/- with other expenditure around Rs.1,00,000/- between 18.07.2022. The complainant has deposited the EMIs of the Bank Loan per month. The O.P. has not given the Warranty Card & Manual of the Hydraulic Machine. Complainant being a customer & consumer of O.P. suffered a lot mentally, physically & financially. On 10.04.2023 when complainant contacted the O.P. about the machine equipment, the O.P. did not respond. The cause of action arose on dtd.10.04.2023. The complainant has prayed to direct the O.P. to pay the compensation of Rs.4,99,000/- along with cost & legal expenses.
O.P. submits that, the complaint has been filed not with respect to any negligence/deficiency neither in services nor for any unfair trade practices adopted by O.P. but is purely filed to tarnish image of O.P. & his technical expert team clean image & bring disrepute to his good name. There is no element of any negligence in the services rendered by O.P. The complaint discloses no cause of action related to acts of omission & commission of O.P. Complainant has filed this case against the O.P. just to harass, defame & extort an illegal sum of money by abusing the process. This complaint deals with a complicated matter of both facts & law. This matter requires adducing plenty of evidence & also requires examination & cross-examination of plenty of witnesses. The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 17.07.2022 as an advance by way of online transaction ID: 2198854585888. Complainant paid Rs.60,000/- on 20.07.2022 to O.P. vide transaction ID: 220154959197. Complainant further paid Rs.40,000/- on 21.07.2022 in two parts (I) Rs.25,000/- vide UPI transaction ID: 220280674926 (2) Rs.15,000/- vide UPI transaction ID: 220280681572.The total amount received by the O.P. in respect of above mentioned order is Rs.1,10,000/-. No legal notice has been given to the O.P. by the complainant. In pursuance of the said purchase order the O.P. delivered the machine vide invoice no.145/2022-23 on dtd.22.07.2022 to complainant as evidence by acknowledgment of the complainant as delivery challan dtd.27.07.2022. The details of the invoice is as below :
Cost of the Machine ; Rs.40,000/-
GST @ 18 % : Rs. 7,200/-
Total amount Rs.47,200/-
Paper roll material = 20 kg.
O.P. has already cleared the amount outstanding towards complainant. Details of refund mentioned below :-
Freight charges Rs. 7,000/- vide UPI transaction= 22392235137
Raw material refund = Rs.10,000/- vide UPI transaction=227445316167
Total amount = Rs. 17,000/-.
Sanjay Verma Director of Suvidha Manufacturing contacted the complainant to sought out the matter. But complainant was not in mood to settle the matter with O.P. Even Mr. Sanjay Verma offered him to replace the machine & other equipment. Complainant came to O.P. after two month on dtd.24.09.2022. He was convinced with the policy of O.P. and clear his doubt. Then the complainant carried die & raw material, motor of his own vide invoice no.203/2022-23 on dtd.24.09.2022.
Cost of die (13 inches)=10,500/-
Buffer sheet = 15,000/-
Dona Die of 6 inch 4 ½ inch = 5500
Hydraulic Motor = 7,800/-
GST @ 18 % = 6,984/-
Total Amount= 45,784/-
O.P. also prepared the following equipment & raw material for complainant & requested complainant several times to make the payment of Rs.51,330/- complainant flatly refused to take the delivery of the equipment.
1. Sleeper accessory Die = Rs. 16,000/-
2. Juna accessory Die = Rs. 17,500/-
3. Buffer Plate (Sheet) = Rs. 10,000/-
GST 18% = Rs. 7,830/-
Total Amount = Rs. 51,330/-
O.P. has also suffered in its trade due to unprofessional response & illegal trade practice by not complying the terms of agreement by the complainant. The allegations of negligence/deficiency in service are wholly misconceived, groundless, false, untenable in law besides being extraneous & irrelevant having regard to the facts & circumstances of the matter under reference. Complainant is not entitled to any relief whatsoever & is not entitled to claim & recover anything from the O.P. The O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as there is no deficiency of service on his part.
Having heard the rival contentions and materials available in the record, this commission frames these following issues for fair adjudication of the consumer dispute:-
ISSUES.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint has been filed with jurisdiction and within limitation?
- Whether the complainant was able to substantiate his claim that what is promised to him was not delivered to him??
- Whether the OP has caused deficiency in service?
- What relief the complainant is entitled to?
The complainant is the Owner of the tiny scale industry which made payment of a consideration Rs.1,10,000/- to send him Paper Plate Manufacturing unit machinery through UPI (Four times) in between 18.07.2022 to 21.07.2022. So the complainant is a consumer and he has filed this instant complaint with jurisdiction and limitation. Issue No.1 is thus in favor of the complainant.
Issue No.2 & 3 are jointly taken into discussion. There is no material in record to say that exactly what the complainant had ordered and what less the OP Company has less delivered. It appears from the material available in the record that the complainant was misconceived as to what has been shown in the website and wrongly construed it. As it appears from the communications of the OP with complainant which reveals that the OP is very much willing to supply materials but the complainant has shown no interest to purchase additional products. This commission does not find a single count upon which it can vouch safe that the OP has committed unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.
As the complainant failed to bring home the charge of deficiency in service against the OP, he is not entitled to get any relief.
O R D E R.
In the result, the complaint be & same is disallowed. No order of cost against any party.
This order is pronounced in the open Court on this the 18th day of December 2023 under my hand and seal of the Commission.
