DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 10 th day of November, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V. President
: Smt. Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N K, Member
Date of filing: 11/05/2023.
CC/130/2023
Rekha G, - Complainant
W/o Praveen Kumar,
Proprietress,
M/s Annapoorna Papadam,
“Madanasseri”, Angadi, Pulapetta,
Palakkad - 678 632.
(By Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran)
V/s
Sreenivasan - Opposite Party
Proprietor, SD Trading Company
Building No. 32/243K,
Kadavanad, Ponnani,
Malappuram - 679 586.
(Ex-Parte)
O R D E R
Prepared by Smt Vidya A, MEMBER
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The Complainant with an object of carrying on a small scale business of papad making and sales for the purpose of earning a livehood for herself and family started a proprietary concern under the name and style M/s Annapoorna Papadam.
The opposite party who is the proprietor of SD Trading Company had projected their concern as a reputed one engaged in manufacturing good quality Automatic Papad making and ancillary machines. Believing the claims of the opposite party regarding the quality of the machinaries manufactured by them and their after sale service, the complainant approached them for the purchase of the machinery.
The complainant obtained necessary licence from Panchayat and preferred an application under Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme for a loan from SBI and a Term loan of Rs 6,70,000/- was sanctioned by the Bank for the purchase of the machinery and the same was credited to complainant’s loan account on 19/11/2020.
Prior to the sanction of the loan, as per the directions of the Bank, the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs 44,000/- towards margin money and thus complainant’s loan account was having a balance of Rs 7,14,400/- and out of the said amount, an amount of Rs 7,08,000/- was transferred to opposite party’s account towards sale consideration and GST. In addition to Term loan, an additional loan of Rs 1,00,000/- was also availed by the complainant towards working capital on a bonafide belief that with the machines purchased by the complainant she would be able to run the proposed small scale industry profitably and she would be in a position to repay the loans promptly without any default.
Opposite party promised to deliver the machineries ordered without delay. But inspite of the said promise, the machineries were delivered only in the month of March 2021 and it was assembled and made functional only on 28/03/21 and complainant could start using it only on 28/03/21. The inordinate delay in delivering the machineries even after receiving the entire sale consideration had resulted in monetary loss and mental agony to the complainant.
The machineries which were promised to be of high quality started giving problems after 4 months of its use. The machineries would stop functioning in the middle of manufacturing process resulting in loss of raw materials, time and energy. Due to these issues, complainant could not supply the orders resulting in huge monetary loss and loss of good will and reputation of complainant’s proprietary concern.
Complainant and her husband contacted the opposite party many times and requested for rendering after sale service. Even though they promised to depute service personal for attending the issue, nobody turned up and opposite party did not care to attend the complaint and make the machineries functional.
Opposite parties initially attended the complainant’s call; but later the opposite party’s authorised persons started behaving rudely and stopped attending calls and it amounts to Unfair Trade Practice and Deficiency in Service.
The machinaries supplied by the opposite party suffers inherent manufacturing defect and the opposite party had cheated the complainant and made her avail huge amount of loan and to pay Rs 7,08,000/- to the opposite party towards sale consideration and made illegal enrichment and unlawful loss to the complainant.
The complainant had caused to send Lawyer notice dated 9/3/23 to the complainant directing to pay Rs 7,08,000/-along with compensation, but the opposite party ‘refused’ to accept the notice.
So she approached this Commission to (1) Direct the opposite party to refund Rs 7,08,000/- to the complainant which they received as sale consideration for the machineries.
- Direct the opposite party to pay Rs 5 lakhs towards compensation for mental agony, hardships, monetary loss and loss of reputation to complaint’s proprietary concern and
3. To pay Rs 50,000/- towards cost of the proccedings.
2. After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. The notice to the opposite party returned with endorsement. ‘Refused’. So his name was called in open court and was set exparte.
3. Complainant field Proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A9 marked. Complainant filed an application IA476/23 for the appointment of an Expert Commissioner to inspect the machineries and it was allowed. The Commissioner filed Report which is marked as Ext C1.
4. Ext A2 is the Quotation issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext A2 the price of ‘Automatic Pappad Making Machine is Rs 3,54,000/- and price of Automatice Pappad Making Machine Drier is Rs 3,54,000/-. Total cost amount to Rs.7,08,000/-.
From Ext A6 ‘Statement of Account’ for the period from 19/11/2020 to 10/07/2021, it is clear that Rs 7,08,000/- was transferred to the account of SD Trading Company on 19/11/2020.
- Complainant’s contention is that opposite party failed to deliver the macheneries in time. The machineries were delivered only in the month of March 2021 and she could start using it only from 29/03/2021. There was more than 4 months delay in supplying the machineries after receiving the entire consideration. This is a Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite party.
6.The complainant further contends that the machineries which the opposite party claimed to be of high quality could be used by her only for a period of 4 months and after that trouble shootings started. The machineries stopped in the middle of manufacturing process resulting in loss of raw materials, time and energy. According to the complainant, the issues in the machineries is due to inherent manufacturing defect.
7. Inorder to prove her contentions, she filed an application as IA 476/23 for the appointment of an Adv. Commissioner to note down the present condition of the Automatic Pappad making and ancillary machineries purchased by her. IA was allowed and the report filed by the Adv. Commissioner was marked to Ext. C1.
8. In Ext C1, the Commissioner reported that the machine has 3 parts namely.
- Flour mixing machine
- Sheet forming machine and
- Cutting and drier machine.
When the complainant switched on the 1st part of the machine, there was a loud burst of noise from the machine. 2nd part namely sheet forming machine was functional. When the complainant switched on the 3rd part of the machine, it was not working to cut the papad and drier machine to dry the papad was also not working.
He reported that
The cloth sheet in the cutting and drier machine is not moving while operating the machine. Hence it is defective.
So he concluded that the Automatic Pappad making machine is defective and not functioning properly.
- Thus the complainant had succeeded in proving that the machines supplied by the opposite party is defective and not functioning. According to the complainant, due to the issues in the machineries, she could not supply the orders taken by her which resulted in monetary loss and loss of goodwill of her proprietary concern. All these are due to the acts of the opposite parties.
So from the evidence adduced, it is clear that there is Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite party in not curing the defects in the machine and they are bound to compensate the complainant for that. Further, according to the complainant, the delay in delivering the machine, had caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. The non- delivery of the machines in time even after receiving the full consideration is an Unfair Trade Trade Practice on opposite party’s part and they are liable to compensate the complainant.
In the result, complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party
(1). To refund Rs 7,08,000/- with interest @ 10% from 28/03/21 (date of installation of machinaries) till realiztion.
(2).To pay Rs 25,000/- for their Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice and Rs 30,000/- for the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the complainant and Rs 15,000/- as cost of the litigation.
Once the order is complied, the opposite party is directed to take back the defective machineries from the complainant.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.300/-as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment
Pronounced in open court on this the 10th day of November, 2023.
Sd/- Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
