Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/63/2021

Suresh, Mithra Care Print - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, KMI Business Technologies Pvt Ltd and another - Opp.Party(s)

R.Uma

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :21.01.2021

Date of Reservation      :17.10.2022

Date of Order               :31.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 63/2021

MONDAY, THE 31^stDAY OF OCTOBER 2022

Suresh,

Mithra Care Print,

No. 134/166,

V.M.Street,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600014.                                                               …   Complainant

 

-Vs-

 

1.The Manager,

   KMI Business Technologies Pvt Ltd,

   Ground Floor and 1^st Floor,

   Plot no 3068, Block Y,

   14^thMain Road, Anna Nagar,

   Shanti Colony,

   Chennai 600 040.

 

2.KMI Business Technologies Pvt Ltd,

   Head Office: Rep by Authorised Signatory,

   1008, Dalamal House,

   Nariman Point,

   Mumbai 400 021.                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant             :M/s. R.Uma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties        :Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and having treated written Arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the written arguments as oral arguments, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to take back the defective product and to pay a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards damages for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of this complaint.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

 The opposite parties deals with the supply and providing service on Banking Automation products offering a wide range of Photocopier, colour photocopier, color printer etc., where they made a wide digital advertisements that they are the reputed service providers and that they are good at satisfying their customers. He is one among the customer of the said KMI Business Technologies Pvt Ltd, who had purchased one new KM Digital Copy Printer Proc BH-C 1060 situated at the above address and same was installed on 14.03.2019 as a customer code number CUST003570 under certain terms. At the time of purchase the opposite parties was explaining that their product KM Digital Copy Printer Proc BH-C 1060 is most suited and useful one for earnings which will fulfill all his needs and giving assurance of providing him prompt service.  The opposite parties demanded per copy rate charges against the product for the period from 15.3.2019 till 15.03.2021 where the opposite parties agreed that they provide all kinds of services on time for the purchased product. The said purchased product within a month it started giving troubles than assured by the opposite parties at the time of installation of the product. Further, he had made payments every month against all invoices given by opposite parties without delay but even after receiving the payment they shown their negligent attitude and had not provided services which featured loss in his business. He has made payment upon invoice of the opposite parties but to his utter dismay, the opposite parties failed to give him the service on every requirement requested by him. Further, the product was under defect where he raised the same to the opposite parties for service but the opposite parties did not heed to his request. Due to pandemic condition worldwide, the business was kept closed after March 2020 and there were no route to start up with every individual including him were under hardship for their livelihood without income. But the opposite parties sent an email demanding for payment of non-used product and non-provided service after March 2020 till September 2020. The opposite parties demanded to pay the amount rather than servicing the product which was kept unused due to pandemic condition which shows their deficiency in their service. Thus the Complainant was under huge monetary loss with the defective product that he couldn't earn even for his livelihood. The printer was not used due to lock down and the purchased product was non-functioned and thus the obligation of the opposite parties had to provide service but they demanded for payment without doing so. Further, the opposite parties intentionally failed to provide service and thus shown their unfair trade practice towards the Complainant. The opposite parties demanded for payment through email and it was informed them to discontinue their service due to their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. After hearing the said decision taken by the Complainant, that the opposite parties agreed for providing service and sent a person to the Complainant's place and the product got serviced in the last week of November 2020. Again the Complainant decided to continue the service with opposite parties as the Complainant has no option left till March 2021. The monetary transactions that he had with the opposite parties is with HDFC Bank whereas without his knowledge and to utter shock of the Complainant, the opposite parties had deposited his Axis Bank bearing Cheque Number 85452 in the month of December 2020,which was Issued from Account Number 31422334 for a sum of Rs.3,54,954/-with 14.12.2020 as clearing date. Immediately, the Complainant gave a request to Axis bank for a stop payment of the cheque which was returned unpaid on the same day and which he came to know after receiving SMS from Axis Bank. Right after the day one of purchased product all the payment transactions that he had with the opposite parties was only with HDFC bank and it is still being a question that when all of the payment transactions made only with HDFC bank, how the Axis Bank cheque was presented by the opposite parties and that too when the said AXIS bank cheque was not given by him. The Opposite Parties, therefore been failed in rendering services. The negligent act of the Opposite Parties also caused severe monetary loss to him. Further, the opposite parties willfully deposited the cheque without his knowledge and this act of the opposite parties caused him severe mental trauma and mental agony. To solve the issue, he had sent a legal notice 16.12.2020 calling to take back the product but there is no reply received from the end of the opposite parties. Again to utter shock and dismay that to spoil his reputation and life, the opposite parties instead of replying to the notice issued by the Complainant, they have sent other legal notice dated 08.01.2021 under section 138 read with 141 of Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 and under section 420 of IPC 1860. This clearly visualized the illegal intention of the opposite parties against him, that they are completely liable for his mental hardness and agony. As on date, his grievance has not been redressed by the Opposite Parties. The act of the opposite parties arbitrarily demanding for more amounts even on pandemic situation without considering his situation and of his previous payment transactions, the act of the opposite parties under the purview of unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-17  were marked.

4.     The Opposite Parties did not appear before this Commission even sufficient notice served and remained absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the Complainant had purchased KM Digital Copy Printer Proc BH-C 1060 from the Opposite Party. The payments were found to be made by the Complainant as agreed upon to the Opposite Party as per Exs.A-1 to A-13. Though the Complainant had alleged that the Opposite Party had not provided service to the product supplied by them in spite of his requests and had claimed that the Complainant was regularly making the payment as agreed upon, when that is so, the Complainant had failed to produce any material evidence to prove that the services were requested by him and the Opposite Party had failed to  carry out the services, if at all the services were not made by the Opposite Party, the Complainant would not have made the payment till the service was carried out by the Opposite Party. Further it is admitted by the Complainant that the service was done during last week of November, 2020 and had decided to continue the service till March 2021. Having failed to make payments for the product purchased and demanding payment for the product supplied would not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The dispute of cheque which was not issued to the Opposite Party had been presented for clearance, would not be a Consumer dispute. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Party had not committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 &3:-

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint. And hence the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s.

In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 31^st of October 2022. 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	31.03.2019	Tax invoice No.MCHE/MAR19/0116
Ex.A2	23.03.2019	Delivery challan
Ex.A3	02.05.2019	Tax invoice No.MCHE/MAY19/0033
Ex.A4	01.06.2019	MCHE/JUN 19/0033
Ex.A5	01.07.2019	MCHE/JUL 19/0036
Ex.A6	01.08.2019	MCHE/AUG 19/0028
Ex.A7	02.09.2019	MCHE/SEP 19/0033
Ex.A8	01.10.2019	MCHE/OCT 19/0033
Ex.A9	01.11.2019	MCHE/NOV 19/0034
Ex.A10	02.12.2019	MCHE/DEC 19/0032
Ex.A11	03.01.2020	MCHE/JAN 20/0035
Ex.A12	01.02.2020	MCHE/FEB 20/0055
Ex.A13	02.03.2020	MCHE/MAR 20/0047
Ex.A14	01.05.2020 08.06.2020	BANK STATEMENT
Ex.A15	13.05.2020	MCHE/MAY 20/0043
Ex.A16	19.12.2020	LEGAL NOTICE
Ex.A17	22.12.2020	Track Consignment Receipt

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT