Tripura

West Tripura

CC/26/2015

Shri Anjan Paul. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Bijoy Pandey, Prop. Of M/s. Vending Machines & Premixes & 1 another - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. D.Bhattacharya, Mr.M.K.Roy, Mr. A.K.Choudhury, Mr. P.K.Pual.

13 May 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-   26   of   2015

Sri Anjan Paul,
S/O- Late Sudhan Chandra Paul, 
Mantribari Road, 
P.O. Agartala, 
P.S. West Agartala, 
District- West Tripura.            …...Complaint.

VERSUS

1. Shri Bijay Pandey,
Proprietor of 
M/S Vending Machines & Premixes,
Kumaritilla, Abhoynanagr, 
Agartala- 799005, 
West Tripura.

2. Managing Director, 
Godrej Boyce & Mfg. Co. Ltd. 
Ulubari, G.S Road-781007.         .........Opposite parties.
   
      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Prasanta Kr. Pal,
                      Sri Mihir Kanti Roy,
                      Sri Ajay Kr. Choudhury,
                      Mrs. Debjani Bhattacharjee,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 1             : Sri Nitai Choudhury,
                      Smt. Manisha Choudhury,
                      Smt. Baishaki Chakraborty,
                      Advocates.

For the O.P. No. 2            : Sri Uttam Kumar Chakraborty,
                      Advocate.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  13.05.2016

J U D G M E N T
        This is case was filed  by one Anjan Kanti Paul U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Case proceeded exparte against the Managing Director, Godrej Boyce Company Ltd. and another Vijay Pandey, Proprietor of M/S Vending Machine & Premixes.
2.        Petitioner complained against the deficiency of service of both the O.P. He purchased one Godrej hot and cold  machine on payment of Rs,30,000/. Machine was found defective. So, he requested the O.P. No.1, proprietor of M/S Vending machine to refund the part payment of Rs.30,000/- and take back the machine. But it was not taken by and O.P. insisted for payment of rest amount. So, this petition filed claiming compensation amounting to Rs.1, 80,000/-. 

O.P. No.1, proprietor M/S Vending Machines appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. O.P. No.2, Godrej Boyce did not appear. O.P. No.1, refuted the claim stating that the price of the machine was Rs.75,000/- on part payment of Rs.30,000/-. The machine was handed over. Dues Rs.50,322/- not paid. Machine was all right, no disorder found by the technician. The complainant is not maintainable and barred by limitation.

4.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I)     Whether the petition is maintainable?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service by O.Ps?
5.        Petitioner side produced the cash memo, demand notice, reply letter, also produced statement on affidavit of one witness, Anjan Pal.

6.        O.P. No.1 on the other hand produced no evidence. Examined one witness, Vijay Pandey, Proprietor of M/S Vending machine.        
7.         On the basis of all the evidence we  shall now determine the above points.            
            Findings and decision:
8.         It is admitted fact that for the purpose of business complainant purchased the Godrej hot and cold machine on part payment of Rs.30,000/-. Complainant admitted in para 2 of the complaint.  Complainant also stated that he has been running the business with that machine. O.P. stated that when the machine was installed at the shop premisses of the complainant along with another machine for Rs.6522/- he pressurized the complainant to pay the outstanding dues Rs.50,322/-. The petitioner denied to make the payment and made false allegation that the machine not working. When technician was sent on checking it was found that the machine was O.K. Complainant produced no evidence to support that the machine was not working. He insisted for refund of the Rs.30,000/- and return the machine. It is true that the machine purchased in 2014 and case filed on 2016 alleging that the machine was not working. So, it is not time barred. But the petitioner was not a consumer. He purchased the machine for business purpose. It was installed in the shop premisses. It was not purchased for use as a consumer. This Consumer Forum deals with the problems of the consumers and try to give redress to the consumers only. As the machines was purchased for business purpose so this Consumer Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. This complaint therefore, is not maintainable before this Forum. From the evidence on record it is found that the machine was purchased for business. It was in working condition and there is no evidence to support that the machine was not working. The allegation given by the petitioner that the machine not working is not substantiated by any kind of evidence. Replacement or repairing only can be done when the machine is found  defective. In this case it can not be said that the machine was defective & it is required to be replaced. Therefore, this claim petition alleging deficiency of service  has no merit.
        
9.        Both the points are decided against the petitioner. In view of our above findings over the two points filed by the complainant is dismissed. Parties are to bear their own cost.        
  
                               Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA