DATE OF FILING : 18.3.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2011

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.68/2011

Between

Complainants : 1. Raveendran K.E.,

Proprietor - S.K. Printers,

Kallingakudyil Building,

Near Adam Star Complex,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District.

2. Soly K. Raveendran, W/o Raveendran K.E.,

Proprietor - S.K. Printers,

Kallingakudyil Building,

Near Adam Star Complex,

Thodupuzha P.O.,

Idukki District .

(Both by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

And

Opposite Party : Mahalingam,

Proprietor - M/s Sastha Engineering,

27, Chellandiamman Nagar,

Housing Unit West, Singanallur,

Coimbatore – 641 005,

Tamil Nadu.

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The 1^st and 2^nd complainants are partners of a printing business establishment working at Thodupuzha in the name and style M/s S.K. Offset Printers. Mr. Mahalingam, the proprietor of opposite party approached the 1^st complainant at his establishment at Thodupuzha and canvassed an order for 2 units of 'Adding Rolls Machine (Paper Conversion Machine) from the complainant. The opposite party issued an offer letter dated 10.4.2009 showing the terms and conditions of the sale which included the condition of one year warranty for the machines against manufacturing defects. The machines were purchased by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.1,22,200/- vide bill No.1112. Based on purchase and installation of the new machine, the complainant had entered into a contract with the Kerala State Beverages Corporation for the supply of adding rolls (Computer Bill Paper Rolls), dated 1.4.2009. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the registration of VAT and CST and Rs.6,000/- for transportation of the machines in lorry No.KL-38-1709 from Coimbatore. The units were purchased by the complainant through his agent one Mr.Sureshkumar, also with his nephew Mr.Santhosh. The technicians of the opposite party, one Mr.Guna and another person Mr.Raju who is the brother-in-law of Sri.Mahalingam, proprietor of the opposite party concern, accompanied the units purchased from the opposite party and installed the two machines at the complainant's press at Thodupuzha on 24.4.2009. Upon the installation of the units, they were found to be defective. Their functioning was not proper. So that the unit was

(cont....2)

- 2 -

dismantled by the said Guna and one Seena and taken back to Coimbatore for repairs. But the opposite party never rectified the defects of the machines. The technicians of the opposite party never came back with the parts taken by them from the Adding Roll Machines purchased by the complainant from the opposite party. So that the complainant demanded to return the purchase price paid by him to the opposite party. So the opposite party required the 1^st complainant to return the remaining parts of the two defective machines. The complainant delivered back the two defective machines to the opposite party as required by him in lorry No.KL-38-1709 and paid an amount of Rs.6000/- for transportation charge of the defective machines. The opposite party had returned Rs.58,750/- only after receiving back the two machines and issued a letter dated 15.5.2009 in which it is clearly stated that the opposite party had received back the two machines and paid only Rs.58,750/- to the complainant. They also agreed to pay the balance amount after selling the returned machines. Since the opposite party supplied defective machines to the complainants, the complainants could not honour the contracts entered with the Kerala Beverages Corporation. But it resulted in delay and the complainants lost the contracts and heavy loss was caused to them. Ultimately the complainants had to purchase a new Paper Adding Roll machine from another manufacturer for the daily use. Rs.25,000/- was paid for the registration of VAT and CST. More than 10 times the complainant had to travel to the opposite party and paid Rs.15,000/- as taxi in respect of the same. Rs.12,000/- were paid as transportation charge and the opposite party is entitled to pay the balance amount of Rs.63,450/- which is the value of the returned machines. The complainant had also lost the contract from the Beverages Corporation due to the non-supply of the fault free machine. So a loss of Rs.5 lakhs was caused to the complainant. The 1^st complainant met with a motor vehicle accident and he was in a serious condition, was admitted in Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences, Kochi. So the petition is filed for getting compensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the opposite party.

2. The notice was duly served to the opposite party, but the opposite party was absent and so made exparte.

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainants are entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P14 marked on the side of the complainants.

5. The POINT :- As per PW1, the 1^st complainant, the proprietor of the opposite party Mr.Mahalingam approached the complainant and canvassed order for two units of Adding Roll Machines (Paper Conversion Machine) on 10^th April, 2009 and the copy of the letter showing the terms and conditions of the sale and warranty of one year offered is marked as Ext.P1. On purchase of the two machines, on 22.4.2009, the opposite party issued a bill of Rs.1,22,200/- with a cost of Rs.58,750/- for each machine and tax for Rs.4,700/-. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P2. A delivery challan was also issued by the opposite party and it is marked as Ext.P3. The letter issued from the Secretary, Municipality of Thodupuzha, for transporting the same machines through the check post for the use of the complainants and copy of the same is marked as Ext.P5. Copy of the covering letter issued by the complainant at the check post, Valayar, is marked as Ext.P4. The complainant is having VAT registration for purchase and getting order and copy of the VAT registration is produced and marked as Ext.P6. Exts.P1 to P6 shows that the complainant purchased a Paper Rolling Machine from the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.1,22,200/- and it was transported to the complainants' printing unit at Thodupuzha. On purchase of these

(cont......3)

- 3 -

machines, the complainant made a contract with the Kerala State Beverages Corporation for supplying the computer bill paper rolls (Adding Rolls) and the agreement was executed on 1.4.2009. Copy of the same is marked as Ext.P7. Eventhough the complainant purchased the same machine and he paid Rs.6,000/- for transporting in a lorry No.KL-38-1709, the machine erected by the opposite party at the complainants' concern was not properly working. One technician Mr.Guna and one Mr.Raju, who is the brother-in-law of the proprietor of the opposite party, accompanied and erected the unit at Thodupuzha. So because of the defect of the machine, the opposite party themselves with their technicians Seena and Guna dismantled the parts and taken them to Coimbatore for repair and a receipt was issued to the complainant for the same. Copy of the receipt for taking back the parts of the machine for repair is marked as Ext.P8. Eventhough it was taken back for repair, defect of the machine was not at all cured. So the complainant demanded for the price of the machines after taking back the same. So the opposite party required the 1^st complainant to return the remaining parts of the two defective machines. A letter was issued by the complainant to the check post at Valayar for return of the machine and copy of the letter is marked as Ext.P9. The said machine was received by the opposite party at their office at Coimbatore and an amount of Rs.58,750/- was paid to the complainant through a cheque leaf as cheque No.043454 and the balance was offered by the opposite party after selling the machine. The letter issued for the issuance of the cheque and balance payment by the proprietor of the opposite party Mr.P. Mahalingam is marked as Ext.P10. So it is admitted by the opposite party themselves that the machines purchased by the complainant were having defect and it cannot be cured. So they themselves taken back the same and an advance amount of Rs.58,750/- was issued to the complainant for the price of the machines and the balance amount was also assured after the sale of the same. But even several times the complainant contacted the opposite party that amount was not given by the opposite party. The complainant was constrained to purchase another machine because of the defect of the machines purchased from the opposite party and the invoices issued from M/s.Romac Enterprises, Chennai for the purchase of the new machine are marked as Exts. P12 and P13. So the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,40,250/- for the same as per Exts. P12 and P13. Because of the non-availability of the defectless machines from the opposite party, the complainant himself purchased Adding Rolls, from local in order to supply as per the contract with the Kerala State Beverages Corporation. Ext.P11 is the bill for the purchase of such Adding Rolls from M/s.Sun Paper Convertors, Palani for an amount of Rs.6,000/-. But the same was not at all sufficient for the supply to the Beverages Corporation and the contract has been lost due the delay of supply. It made heavy loss to the complainant. The complainant paid another Rs.6,000/- as lorry charge for the delivery of the defective machines at the opposite party office at Coimbatore. The complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.63,450/- from the opposite party for the balance cost of the defective machines which the complainant have returned to the opposite party. A heavy loss has been caused to the complainant due to the loss of the order from the Beverages Corporation. So we think that it is a gross deficiency and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party that the opposite party supplied defective machines to the complainant after the receipt of huge amount and the same defect was not at all cured. Eventhough they have taken back the machines, the amount paid by the complainant was not at all returned to the complainant as per the assurance given by them. So the opposite party should compensate the complainant for the same. The opposite party should repay the amount to the complainant and realise the amount after selling the same. The complainant is not needed to wait for the sale of old machines. It is not because of any act of the complainant that the defect caused. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- for lorry fare for the purchase and redelivery of the machines and there is no dispute regarding the same. The matter was not at all challenged by the opposite party. It may be true that the complainant caused heavy loss due to the lapse of the order from the Beverages Corporation.

(cont.....4)

- 4 -

Here Ext.P7 agreement also clarifies that the complainant entered into contract with the Beverages

Corporation after the purchase of the new machines from the opposite party. So we fix an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the loss caused to the complainant due to the lapse of the order from the Beverages Corporation. The complainant never produced any evidence to show that the order of the Beverages Corporation has been lost from the complainant, no letter from the said Beverages Corporation stating that Ext.P7 order contract has been terminated by the Corporation due to the non-supply of the paper rolls. But these matters were not at all challenged by the opposite party in anywhere. It may be true that the complainant has caused a heavy mental and physical agony due to the non-supply of the defectless machines and also some amount has been spent by the complainant for contacting the opposite party at Coimbatore. So we fix an amount of Rs.2,000/- for the same. So a total amount of Rs.1,02,450/- is entitled by the complainant as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant due the purchase of the defective machines from the opposite party.

Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,02,450/- to the complainant as compensation for the loss sustained by him due to the purchase of the defective machines from the opposite party and Rs.2,000/- for the cost of this petition within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25^th day of July, 2011

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - K.E. Raveendran.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Letter from the opposite party to the complainant, dated 10.4.2009

and the offer sheet showing the warranty.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the bill for Rs.1,22,200/-, dated 22.4.209.

Ext.P3 - The delivery challan issued by the opposite party, dated 22.4.2009.

Ext.P4 - The letter issued by the complainant to the check post, dated 25.4.2009

Ext.P5 - Copy of the letter from the Secretary, Municipality of Thodupuzha,

to the check post.

Ext.P6 - Copy of the VAT registration of the complainant's concern.

Ext.P7 - Copy of the complainant's contract with the Kerala State

Beverages Corporation, dated 1.4.2009.

Ext.P8 - Copy of the receipt for taking back the parts of the machine for repair.

Ext.P9 - Copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the check post,

dated 14.5.2009.

Ext.P10 - Letter from the opposite party to the complainant, dated 15.5.2009.

Ext.P11 - Cash bill for Rs.6,000/- issued from the Sun Paper Convertors, Palani.

Ext.P12 - The invoice issued from M/s.Romac Enterprises, Chennai, dated 29.6.2009.

Ext.P13 - The invoice issued from M/s.Romac Enterprises, Chennai, dated 4.9.2009.

Ext.P14 - Application form for Provisional Registration as Small Scale Industries.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.