By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Party to replace the defective machine installed at the Complainant's unit or to repay the amount of Rs.1,88,000/- with interest of 12% from 23.11.2015 till the disbursal of the amount, to direct the Opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- per month towards the repayment of loan, to pay the rent of Rs.4,200/- per month, to provide salary to the labourers of an amount of Rs.40,000/- per month to the Complainant till the replacement of the machinery and to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. Complaint in brief:- For the purpose of livelihood, the Complainant and his partner Dipu started a food production unit and the Complainant availed loan for this purpose. The Complainant purchased a packing machinery from Opposite Party for packing the Food product for a sum of Rs.1,88,000/-. The Complainant baught the form filling and sealing machine on 23.04.2016 and the said machinery was delivered at the site of the Complainant at Payyampally on 25.11.2015. After a week of production, the machine used to become faulty. After the 2nd week of December 2015, the Complaint had arised again and a letter was send to the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party had send two technicians and rectified the defect. After a week, the machine again become faulty. In the 2nd week of April, One technician named Karthik from Opposite Party company came to the site of Complainant and dismantled the machine but he was unable to reset it. The production and packing unit become idle now and is going in great loss. The Complainant had to sustain severe loss and mental agony. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party and the Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version of Opposite party, the Opposite party contented that the complainant approached the Opposite party for purchasing a pouching machine. There are two types of machines ie Automatic form filling and sealing mechanical machine and pneumatic machine. The mechanical machine can be operated by skilled labourers alone. Pneumatic machine can be used by anyone. It was categorically explained to the Complainant before purchase that the volume or quantity of the chilli powder and coriander powder are different. All other arrangements are explained to the Complainant and demonstration was shown. The Complainant selected automatic form filling and scaling machine (mechanical) machine. The total price of machine including transportation was Rs.1,85,000/-. The Complainant paid only Rs.1,60,000/-. The balance outstanding amount is Rs.25,000/-. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.2,000/- is also due towards supply of consumables. The total outstanding amount is Rs.27,000/-. There was no skilled labour with the Complainant. The reason for the default of machine was the mishandling of the machine by the claimant and his men. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.
1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and the Complainant is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 is marked. Commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The Opposite party not adduced any oral evidence. Ext.A1 is the purchase invoice. Ext.C1 is the Commission Report. As per Ext.C1 Commission Report, the Commissioner noted the defect such as the weight of one packet was only 39 gm- 47gm instead of 100 gm as promised, sealing and cutting of packets are not proper, strings of the packets are unable to separate properly. It will cause to generate unsized and damaged packets. These kinds of packets are unable to sell in current market, the palate of the machinery is not rotating properly, unable to stop rotation of the plate whenever required. The weight differences of the packets are due to the improper functioning of the feeder of the machine. Present feeder is not supporting to fill the cups properly. Cutting and sealing of the packets are not perfect because it is different to set the blades in current socket of the sealer. When working blade will go inside the socket. Strings of the packets are unable to separate due to improper sealing and cutting. the plate of the machine is not rotating properly because the sizes of the cup holes are not uniform size. Unable to stop rotation of the palate is happening due to slipping of lever from its thread. The Commissioner reported that most of the observed Complainants are manufacturing defect. The main manufacturing defected area are feeder, cup hole, blade socket, plate stopper thread, timer bar etc. The Forum found that the Commissioner examined the machinery in the presence of Opposite Party. The Commissioner not stated that the defect are due to mishandling of machinery with unskilled labourers. Instead the Commissioner stated that the defects are due to manufacturing defect. The Opposite party filed IA 416/16 to set aside the Commission Report on the ground that the Commissioner not allowed the Opposite party's technicians to make certain adjustments in the machine at the time of inspection. The Forum found no merit in the petition and IA 416/16 is dismissed. Against the dismissal order, the Opposite Party filed appeal before the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal (Appeal No.239/17 dated 02.05.2017). The Forum found that the Opposite party not appeared before the Forum thereafter and adduced any evidence. The Forum can rely only on Commission report. The Commissioner stated that there is manufacturing defect in the machine. The Opposite party had not taken any further steps to defend the case and disprove the case of the Complainant. On an over all evaluation of the case records and evidences, the Forum found that the Complainant succeeded in proving his case. Since Opposite party failed to rectify the defect of the machine and make it in proper running condition, the Forum found that it is a clear deficiency of service from the part of Opposite party. Point No.1 found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,88,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Eighty Eight Thousand) only to the complainant being the price of the machine with 10% interest from the date of complaint till realisation. The Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand) as compensation to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) as cost of the proceedings. On receipt of the above amount from the Opposite Party, the Complainant is directed to give back the machine to the Opposite party. The Opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 14th day of September 2017.
Date of Filing:26.04.2016.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
/True Copy/
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
CW1. George. J. Commissioner.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Tax Invoice. dt:23.11.2015.
C1. Inspection Report. dt:29.09.2016.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
Nil
