Karnataka

Kolar

CC/37/2017

Sri S.N.Anjinappa s/o Narasimhappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Lakshmi Traders - Opp.Party(s)

D.V.Lakshminarayana

26 Apr 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 24/04/2017

Date of Order: 26/04/2018

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

 

Dated: 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2018

PRESENT

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

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

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 37 OF 2017

Sri. S.N.Anjinappa,

S/o. Narasimhappa,

Aged About 42 years,

Polampalli village,

Varlakonda Post, Peresandra

Road, Gudibande Taluk,

Chikkaballapura District.

PIN – 562 104.                                                      ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Laxmi Narayana, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

(1) Sri Lakshmi Traders,

Lakshmi Wet Grinder Dealer,

No.49/1,S.J.P.Road,

Bangalore-560002.

(Rep. by Sri. A.N. Krishna, Advocates)

 

(2) The Manager,

Canara Bank Branch,

Beechaganahalli,Gudibande

Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

Pin:561209.

(Rep. by Sri. R.A. Mohan, Advocate)                    …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

-: ORDER:-

BY SMT. A.C. LALITHA, LADY MEMBER,

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter in short it is referred as “the Act”) against the opposite parties for issuance of directions to OP No.1 to return the amount of Rs.2,58,882/- as per invoice No.355 & 356 dated: 25.08.2016 towards defective machinery along with interest at the rate of 18% and also sought compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for mental agony and torture and unnecessary expenses and cost of Rs.25,000/- has been sought and also any other reliefs as this Forum deems to be fit.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, being a trained Tordal machine operating he availed loan from OP No.2 Canara Bank, Beechaganahally, Chikkaballapura District, of Rs.5,00,000/- and purchased Tordal Machine from OP No.1 Sri Lakshmi Traders, Bangalore.  Towards it OP No.2 had disbursed amount through NEFT on 03.06.2016 as mentioned below:-

i) From SB Account bearing

No. 64132982070 of Basaveshwara Market to

as per the quotation of Lakshmi Traders                     2,58,882.00

 

ii) To Ramachandran towards construction

of Shed                                                                            71,500.00

 

iii) To Munna Electricals, Gudibande                                60,000.00

 

iv) Through cash on hand                                               20,000.00

 

v) Loan taken by the complainant

from bank                                                                        89,618.00

 

(b)    It is further contended that, even after 03 months of receipt of the this amount OP No.1 since not supplied the said machine complainant approached OP NO.2 – Bank and complained, which is of no response.  Later on he had been approached to OP No.1 through phone and personal visit to Bangalore, after 05 months delay OP No.1 had given the said machine by his own expenses of Rs.15,000/- rent for lorry and brought the machine from Bangalore to his village and installed in 40 x 20 feet area and spent Rs.3,20,000/- towards the shed built.  From the day of installation the said Tordal machine is not in a working condition, when same informed to OP No.1 and got replied as since it is new machine it will take few days to get it set-right, even after also the said machine is not working properly. 

 

(c)    Intimation regarding this to OP No.1 since of no use, the complainant had given complaint to The District Commissioner, Chikkaballapura District, The Human Rights Commission, Bangalore, The President & Secretary of Scheduled Casts & Scheduled Tribes Commission, Bangalore, The Civil Rights Directorate, Kolar, Lead Bank Manager, Chikkaballapura.  Even then also OP No.1 did not come forward to rectify the defect found in the said machine nor made replacement.  So contending, the complainant has come up with this complaint by seeking the above set-out reliefs.

 

03.   In response to the notice issued by this Forum, Ops have put its appearance through their learned counsel and filed written version.  The contention of OP No.1 is that, this complaint is not maintainable on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, since the dispute with regard to supply of machinery as per the invoice bearing Nos. 355 & 356 it is clearly mentioned that, any dispute among the parties “subject to Bangalore jurisdiction only” and “goods once sold cannot be taken back”.  And there is no cause of action to file this complaint also. 

 

(a)    OP No.1 admits the purchase of Tordal machine and it is contended that, since the complainant was unable to keep the required items of grains and stocks so as to run the machine in proper manner, there are 04 stages of processing of grains, from 1^st and 4^th stage which requires minimum 400 kgs of grains/stocks to run the machinery, but the complainant without keeping grains in stock started to run the machine which is not in accordance with the processing manner.  Unless there is working capital to run the machine by the stock of 400 kg grains, the complainant will not get good result from the said machine and also the quality of result will depend upon the quality of grains and even it depends, how the complainant feeds and follow the due process of operation of machineries. 

 

(b)    The fact of working condition stock required, process of its use are all clearly intimated to the complainant before the delivery of machineries.   In fact on the date of booking of the machineries itself the complainant who had taken all the instructions from the OP No.1 regarding using of machine and also the stock required to run the quality materials.   Thus there is no fault on the part of the OP No.1 in supplying of the machineries. 

 

(c)    OP No.1 admits that, as per the quotation, the cost of said Tordal machine was Rs.2,58,882/-, accordingly the invoices bearing No.355 dated: 25.08.2016 and invoice No.356 dated: 25.08.2016 were raised.  The same was in receipt through OP No.2.  Accordingly OP No.2 on the instructions given by the complainant has transferred the said amount through NEFT to the account of OP No.1.

 

(d)    It is further contended that OP No.1 had given statement to the Superintendent of Police, Kolar, as reply to the complaint given by the complainant accordingly the police after recording the statements closed the file.  And specifically denied all the allegations of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint cost has been sought.

 

04.   The OP No.2 being a Bank submitted its version as it has been given loan to the complainant based on the project report and quotation submitted by the complainant had issued loan and also disbursed the loan amount to the OP No.1 through NEFT.  And it submits as it is no way concern to the defect of the machinery dispute between OP No.1 and the complainant and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

05.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Copy of the complaint given to DC, Chikkaballapura.

(ii) Copy of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 11.

(iii) Notice copy dated: 11.01.2017 issued by O/o Deputy Director of Police, Civil Rights enforcement agency, Kolar Unit, Kolar, to OP No.1.

(iv) Copy of Reminder dated: 21.06.2017 issued by Chief Operating Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Chikkaballapura.

(v) Copy of Reminder dated: 03.07.2017 Operating Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Gudibande.

(vi) Copy of complaint dated: 05.08.2017 given by Panchayath Development Officer, Varlagunda Village Panchayath, Gudibande Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

(vii) Copy of the written complaint given by complainant and villagers.

(viii) Copy of the Quotation dated: 21.05.2016 issued by OP No.1.

(ix) Copy of the Tax Invoice No.355 dated: 25.02.2016 issued by OP No.1 for Rs.88,162/-.

(x) Copy of the Tax Invoice No.356 dated: 25.08.2016 issued by OP No.1 for Rs.1,70,720/-

(xi) Copy of the Bill dated: 03.06.2016 issued by Bangalore Electrical & Machinery Company.

(xii) Copy of the invoice Bill dated: 01.08.2016 issued by Vahini Pipes.

(xiii) Copy of the certificate dated: 15.04.2016 issued by Canara Bank Rural Self Emplloyment Training Institute, Chickballapur.

(xiv) Copy of the Provisional National Trade Certificate of Craftsmen training scheme issued by Secretary, State Employment Education Parishath, Bangalore.

(xv) Copy of the National Apprenticeship Certificate issued by the National Council for Vocational Training.

(xvi) Copy issued by OP No.1 pertaining to mode of payments made by the complainant.

(xvii) Original copy of Certificate dt: 15.01.2018 issued by Bismillah Engineering Works, Gudibande.

(xviii) Original copy of Demand Notice issued by Canara Bank, Beechaganahalli.

(xix)   Copy of the pass-book issued by the Canara Bank

(xx) Copy of Income Certificate issued by Thasildhar, Gudibande Taluk.

(xxi) Copy of Caste Certificate issued by Thasildhar, Gudibande Taluk.

(xxii) 04 photographs of machineries.

(xxiii) Copy of the Quotation for Interior Services issued by Munna Electricals Contract System, Gudibande.

(xxiv) Copy of Ration Card.

(xxv) Copies of Electricity Bills and its payment receipts

(xxvi) Notarized Affidavit made in E-stamp paper.

 

06.   On behalf of OP No.1 Sri. P. Ramakrishna has sworn his affidavit evidence and the learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 has submitted below mentioned documents:-

(i) Tax Invoice No.355, dated: 25.08.2016

(ii) Tax Invoice No.356, dated: 25.08.2016

(iii) Quotation dated: 21.05.2016

(iv) Acknowledgement issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kolar, dated: 11.04.2017.

 

07.   On behalf of OP No.2 Sri.Venkatesh, Manager of Canara Bank, Beechaganahalli Branch, has sworn his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief.

(i) Quotation Copy dated: 21.05.2016

(ii) Copy of mode of payment made to OP No.1

(iii) Statement of Account of complainant.

 

08.   Both parties have submitted their respective written arguments and we have heard the oral arguments too.

 

09.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration are that:-

(1) Whether this complaint is maintainable on the ground of cause of action and jurisdiction?

 

(2) Whether the repudiation made on the part of OP No.1 with regard to claim of the complainant would amount to deficiency in service?

 

(3) If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as he sought?

 

(4) What order?

10.   Our findings on the above stated points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (2) & (3):-In the Affirmative

POINT (4):-      As per the final order

for the following:-

REASONS

POINT (1):-

11.   Admittedly OP No.1 had supplied and installed the Tordal machine in the arranged place of complainant as per invoice bearing Nos. 355 & 356 dated: 25.08.2016.   OP No.1 admits that, it has been given statement before Superintendent Of Police with regard to the complaint of this complainant, in this regard on 11.04.2017 (relied on document submitted by OP no.1 acknowledgment dated: 11.04.2017).

 

12.   This means this issue was within the knowledge of OP No.1 on 11.04.2017 itself, that is, prior to the filing of this complaint.  This complaint is filed before this Forum on 24.04.2017.  Therefore when the matter was discussed prior to filing of this complaint and since not settled before the Superintendent Of Police, Kolar, there itself the dispute raised.  Therefore that is the date of cause of action arosed to this complaint.

 

13.   And with regard to jurisdiction OP No.1 contends that, this Forum lacks jurisdiction since for any disputes it is clearly mentioned in the Invoice as “subject to Bangalore Jurisdiction Only” of course they may adopt any conditions as above, but we relied on as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 since the cause of action arosed within the limits of this Forum. Therefore we opined that, this complaint is maintainable on the ground of cause of action and jurisdiction too.

 

POINT (2) & (3):-

14.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time.

 

15.   On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant i.e., Mahazar of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Gudibande, dated: 05.08.2017 along with Mahazar dated: 28.07.2017, Mahazar of Villagers, it clearly reveals that, the said Tordal machine is not working properly.  According to the Mahazar when these people had tried to check the working condition of the said machine, when they put Tordal in the said machine for grinding there may be out-put of ½ of the Dall as it is.  And in support of this Mahazar the certificate dated: 15.01.2018 was issued by Shaik Mahaboob, Bismillah Engineering Works, Gudibande, wherein it is clearly certified as, this Tordal machine is defective one.  For the same OP No.1 failed to prove that, the said machine is in good condition.  Hence we believe version of complainant.

 

16.   Therefore in view of the above discussion, we come to the conclusion that, the Tordal machine supplied by the OP No.1 to the complainant is defective one.  By repudiating to replacement of said disputed Tordal machine OP No.1 had rendered gross negligence and deficiency in service.  Therefore the complainant is entitled to receive the amount of Tordal Machine of Rs.2,58,882/- from OP No.1 and compensation and cost as per the final order.

 

17.   Since OP No.2 is the Bank which was given loan and disbursed the amount to OP No.1 as per the instructions of the complainant only.  Hence, in our opinion this Bank is only a formal party to this complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2-Bank.  Accordingly we answer point (2 & (3) in the affirmative as against OP No.1.

 

POINT (4):-

18.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) to (3) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint stands Allowed as against OP No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- as hereunder:-

(a) The complainant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.2,58,882/- towards cost of the Tordal machine exclusively from OP No.1 i.e., Sri Lakshmi Traders along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of installation of the Tordal machine i.e., on 03.02.2017 till realization.

 

(b)    The complainant is directed to hand-over the defective Tordal machine to OP No.1 as in existing condition from the day of compliance of this order by OP No.1 and the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the OP No.1.

(c)    We grant 30 days time to OP No.1 to comply the order from the date of communication of this order.

 

(c)    The complaint against OP No.2-Bank is hereby dismissed with no 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 26^th DAY OF APRIL 2018)

 

 

LADY MEMBER                         PRESIDENT