Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/552/2022

Nayeem Embroider - Complainant(s)

Versus

STI Apparel Automotion Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shekhar Mudgal

03 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/552/2022
Date of Institution	:	26/05/2022
Date of Decision	:	03/04/2024

 

 

Nayeem Embroider, 1054/2, Gobind Pura, Manimajra, Chandigarh 160101 through its proprietor Mohd. Sakib.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

STI Apparel Automation Pvt. Ltd., B-42, Phase-1, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020 through its Managing Director.

… Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Shekhar Mudgal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for OP

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Nayeem Embroider, complainant against the aforesaid opposite party (hereinafter referred to as the OP).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations as projected in the consumer complaint that vide invoice 25.11.2021 (Annexure C-1/page 8), complainant had purchased two industrial Sewing Machines – make FUCEN (hereinafter referred to as “subject machines”) from the OP by making advance payment of ₹36,960/- (Annexure C-1/page 7) in its account.  However, when the subject machines were delivered to the complainant through transport i.e. Haryana Punjab Roadlines vide GR (Annexure C-2) dated 25.11.2021, same were found in damaged condition as reflected in the pics (Annexure C-3 & C-4).  The complainant was shocked to see the subject machines in damaged condition, which were nicely packed in the boxes. Immediately, complainant informed the OP about the damage found to the subject machines through telephonic message as well as by sending WhatsApp messages (Annexure C-4), but, nothing has been done by it. Thereafter the complainant sent legal notice (Annexure C-6) to the OP with the request either to replace the subject machines or to refund the amount thereof.  Accordingly, OP had admitted the damage by issuing credit/debit note (Annexure C-7) amounting to ₹17,920/-, including taxes, to the complainant in exchange of only one machine, out of two subject machines. In this manner, the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OP resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, concealment of facts, cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties.  On merits, admitted that the subject machines were purchased by the complainant from the OP which were supplied by it to the complainant as per his order. At the time of taking delivery of subject machines, complainant had checked and inspected the same upto his maximum satisfaction and only after that agreed to purchase the same.  The subject machines were despatched from the warehouse of the OP and in this manner the OP is not responsible for the damage caused to the product in transportation as it was the sole responsibility of the buyer/customer.  However, despite of that OP had given replacement through tax invoice dated 20.9.2021 for an amount of ₹17,920/- and the said replacement was adjusted by way of debit note dated 20.12.2021 for an amount of ₹17,920/-. It is further alleged that, in fact, complainant is harassing the OP on one pretext or the other and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being without cause of action against the OP, is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.  The facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been reiterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
3. In rejoinder, complainant re-asserted the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.  However, it is admitted that the OP has issued debit note of ₹17,920/- for one machine in favour of the complainant and not the other. 

2. In order to prove their case, parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased two industrial sewing machines i.e. the subject machines from the OP for total sale consideration of ₹36,960/-, which was transferred by the complainant online, as is also evident from the acknowledgement and tax invoice (Annexure C-1/ page 7 & 8 respectively) and the same were desptched by the OP from its warehouse to the complainant through Haryana Punjab Roadlines and the subject machines were found in damaged condition at the time of delivery to the complainant and when the complainant approached the OP, it had issued credit/debit note (Annexure C-7) to the complainant for an amount of ₹17,920/- i.e. price of one sewing machine only and, till date, has not done anything about the second machine, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the said act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed of in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant, or if there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP and the consumer complaint of the complainant, being false and frivolous, is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OP.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1 (page 7) clearly indicates that the complainant had paid an amount of ₹36,960/-, including tax, to the OP towards the sale consideration for purchase of the subject machines.  Annexure C-2 further indicates that the subject machines were transported through Haryana Punjab Roadlines.  The photographs (Annexure C-3 colly.) clearly indicate that both the machines were found in damaged condition. Even Whatsapp conversation between the parties and the pics sent by the complainant to the OP clearly indicates that the top of one machine and the face plate of the other was found broken and in this manner both the subject machines were found in damaged condition. 
   3. As per the defence of OP, it was the responsibility of the complainant to get the subject machines transported from the warehouse of the OP to his place. However, when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had paid the aforesaid amount to the OP online and the OP had agreed to deliver the subject machines at the given address of the complainant, it is safe to hold that it was the responsibility of the OP to deliver the goods/subject machines upto satisfaction of the purchaser/ complainant. Further, when it has also come on record that the OP had already issued credit/debit note (Annexure C-7) in respect of one machine only, and, as per the case of the complainant, even the said amount has not been credited in his account, till date, and further when OP has not done anything about the second machine, it is safe to hold that the said act clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

1. to refund the invoice price of the subject machines i.e. ₹36,960/- (less the amount already paid, if any) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the present consumer complaint i.e. 26.5.2022 onwards.  It is, however, made clear that the OP shall collect the subject damaged machines from the place of complainant solely at its risk and cost.
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OP within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/04/2024 hg	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member