Karnataka

Kolar

CC/51/2019

Venkatachalapathi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shivashankar Gowda - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

Date of Filing: 19.07.2019

Date of Disposal: 11.12.2019

 

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 11^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2019

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

C.C.NO.51 OF 2019

Venkatachalapathi,

S/o. M.C.Narayanappa,

Aged About 45 Years,

R/at: Cholagatta Village,

Madderi Post, Vemgal Taluk,

Kolar District.  

(Rep. by Sri. Satish Kumar B.S, Advocate)                 ….  Complainant.

- V/s -

Shiva Shankar Gowda, Proprietor,

Sree Beereshwara Enterprises,

#14, Renuka Yellamma Layout,

Somashettyhalli, Chikkabanavara Post,

Bangalore-560 090.

(Rep. by Sri. Praveen Balraj.C, Advocate)               ….. Opposite Party.

: ORDERS :

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT,

01.   The complainant has filed this consumer complaint against OP and prays to direct the OP to refund Rs.7,40,000/- towards Areca plate making machine with interest till realization of the amount, Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and expenses incurred towards repair of defective machine, the cost incurred towards advocate fee, cost of the complaint and such other reliefs  deems fit and prays to allow the complaint.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complainant case is that, he is running areca leaf plates manufacturing unit at Cholagatta Village, Vemgal Hobli, Kolar Taluk and district.  The complainant brings raw-materials for areca manufacturing items and manufactures areca plates, bowls, etc.,.  The OP is the manufacturer of Eco friendly products and hydraulic equipments and he sells areca plate making machine and his business unit is styled as Sri Beereshwara Enterprises.  In the month of January the OP approached and introduced himself as a dealer of areca plate making machine and assured that, they are the experts in manufacturing Eco friendly products and Hydraulic Equipments. On 02.02.2019 the complainant approached OP and purchased the areca plate making machine by paying a sum of Rs.7,40,000/- with the hope of good service vide tax invoice No.22.  The OP delivered the said machine by transporting the same to Cholagatta Village in vehicle No. KA-04 AB 6796 without any technical defects.  The said machine had worked smoothly for three days from the date of purchase later on the machine’s and its features functioning level decreases.  After one week the complainant approached the local mechanic and service was borne with his own cost and the said mechanic disclosed that, the machine is not new one and it is repainted old machine.  When the complainant approached OP and explained the defects in the machine, the OP gave evasive reply and refused to replace the new machine and the OP duped the complainant and cheated him.  The OP has not issued the warranty card in spite of demands.  On 20.06.2019 the complainant issued legal notice to the OP seeking refund of Rs.7,40,000/- paid towards purchase of said machine.  The OP has given reply by admitting the purchase of Areca plate machine vide invoice No.022, dated: 02.02.2019 and falsely stated that, the complainant had only paid Rs.1,00,000/- and assured that remaining amount will be paid after one month or after approval of bank loan.  In fact the complainant had paid full payment of Rs.7,40,000/- to the OP and after making full payment, the OP has issued invoice No.022, dated: 02.02.2019 and falsely stated that, Rs.6,40,000/- is balance.  The OP has evaded to refund the amount towards defective machine.  The complainant is ready to handover the defective machine to the OP, if OP refund the amount.  On 30.06.2019 the complainant approached the OP at office, but OP refused to replace the defective machine nor make repayment of the amount towards the said machine.  Hence complainant approached this Forum and produced documents to support his case and prays to allow the complaint.

 

03.   The OP appeared through the counsel and filed its version.  The OP being the proprietor of Sri. Beereshwara Enterprises manufactures Eco-friendly products and Hydraulic Equipments.  The complainant himself approached the OP at its factory for purchase of areca plate making machine and the OP has explained about the machine.  On 02.02.2019 the complainant purchased the said machine for Rs.7,40,000/- and he has paid advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and assured that, remaining amount will be paid in the next month or if bank loan approve, whichever is earlier will be paid and on that assurance the complainant being the relative to the OP, the OP delivered the machine to the complainant in the vehicle No. KA 04 AB 6796 vide invoice No.22.  The installation work was also completed in the complainant place and machine working condition was also shown to the complainant and made certain samples out of the said machine and the photos were taken at that time about the working condition of the machine.  The OP has not given warranty card to the complainant due to balance payment.  The complainant himself acknowledged and signed the Proforma invoice.  The remaining balance of Rs.6,40,000/- has to be payable to the OP.  The allegation made at para-8 of the complaint that, the machine is hydraulic equipment, this kind of machine has to run by the skilled workers, if not the machine will get repair soon and the same was advised at the time of installation and same was printed in the quotation given to the complainant and repeated advises were given at the time of installation by the OP to keep skilled labour for running the hydraulic equipment machine, but the complainant has failed to keep the skilled labour.  The complainant makes allegations that, the machine is second hand and not a new one, the local mechanic cannot give certificate regarding the hydraulic machine is a second hand nor produced any authenticated certificate issued by the licensed engineer to say about the second hand machine.  The complainant is still producing the areca plates in the same machine in large quantity.  The complainant cheated the OP without paying remaining balance amount.   The allegations made by the complainant are all false and baseless.  The OP has replied the legal notice on 04.08.2019 by demanding to pay the balance amount and the OP prays to dismiss the complaint.

 

04.   The complainant has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and produced four documents i.e.,

(i) Original Tax invoice – Annexure-A

(ii) Photos – Annexure-B

(iii) Xerox copy of legal notice – Annexure-C

(iv) Original reply notice – Annexure-D

 

05.   The OP has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and produced four documents i.e.,

(i) Office copy of the quotation – Annexure-A

(ii) Office copy of the Proforma Invoice-Annexure-B

(iii) Xerox copy of the GST filing from Dec-18 to Sept-19 – Annexure-C

(iv) Xerox copy of the photos – Annexure-D.

 

06.   The complainant and so also the OP filed their written arguments.

 

07.   Now the Points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

1. Whether the complainant has made out the case for deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed by him?

 

2.  What order?

 

08.   Our findings to the above points are that:-

 

POINT No.1:            Is in the Negative.

 

POINT No.2:            As per final order for the

following:-

 

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

09.   We have perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence of both parties, written arguments and so also the documents produced by the parties.  It is a fact that, on 02.02.2019 the complainant has purchased Areca plate manufacturing machine and the same was installed at Cholagatta Village to that effect the complainant has produced invoice as per Annexure-A for Rs.7,40,000/-, dated: 02.02.2019.  The OP has admitted about the purchase of the said machine.  The complainant has contended that, he has used the said machine for three days from the date of purchase and thereafter the said machine functioning level and its features decreases.  After one week the complainant approached the local mechanic and service charges was born by the complainant.  The said local mechanic discloses that, the machine is not new one, but it is repaired old one and the complainant has approached the OP to replace the machine nor pay the machine amount, but in vain.  To support the case of the complainant he has produced original tax invoice as per Annexure-A and photos of machine as per Annexure-B.  But the complainant has not at all produced any document to show that, the said areca plate making machine is old one or defective one.  But on perusal of Annexure-B produced by the OP it reveals about balance of Rs.6,40,000/-, but the complainant has not produced the receipt for payment of Rs.7,40,000/- towards purchase of the said machine.  The complainant has also not at all examined the mechanic who has repaired the said machine and mere oral submission to that effect is not helpful for the complainant to know about the defect of the machine nor it is old one and the complainant has also not examined the person who makes the areca plates from the alleged machine.  The complainant has also not at all produced any expert evidence before the Forum to know about the defects in the machine.  Hence as discussed above the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OP. 

 

10.   The OP has stated that, the complainant is still using the said machine and producing the areca plates in large quantity and to that effect the OP has not produced any documents.  At this juncture it is relevant to state here that, as the complainant has approached the forum, he has to prove his case.  The complainant has also not examined any cogent evidence to support his case.  Hence under these circumstances, as discussed above, the complainant has failed to make out deficiency of service on the part of OP and he is not entitled for any relief as prayed by him and accordingly we answer Point No.1 is in the negative.

 

POINT No.2:-

11.   In view of our finding on Point No.1 and the discussion made thereon, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

02.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019)

 

 

   LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT