Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with thepurchaseof a ‘Paper Cup machine’ worth Rs.4,13,000/- and raw materials viz. 2000 kgs. Of paper and blanks worth Rs.1,90,400/- and 600 kgs. of paper cum bottom worth Rs.50,400/- from the opposite party as mentioned in the heading of this order, post sales service thereof and non-delivery of the goods in their entirety by the said opposite party,the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against the OP, as, in spite of proper dispatch of notice, the OP preferred to refuse it and the same was considered as good service by this Commission vide its order dtd. 06.05.22.

The OP did not appear before this Commission at any further stage in connection with this case.

The fact of the case is that the complainanton 03.03.2021 reportedly placed orders for a unit of Paper Cup Machine valued at Rs.4,13,000/- and raw materials consisting of 2000 kgs. of paper cum blanks worth Rs.1,90,400/- and 600 kgs. of paper cum bottom worth Rs.50,400/-. The Complainant claims to have made payment of Rs.6,53,800/- on that very date and the machine was also delivered on 03.03.2021 itself.

However, the complainant was compelled to lodge a complaint with the OP as allegedly, the machine was not functioning smoothly. Consequent upon the same, the concerned technical personnel on behalf of the OP reportedly visited the spot quite a few times but in spite of making attempts, failed to normalize the functioning of the machine.

However the synopsis of the complaint petition is that there waspurchase of a cup making machine from the OP which did not function properly and in spite of repeated persuasion with the OP selling dealer, the defect was not rectified which allegedly resulted in harassment, financial loss and mental pain for the complainant.

Besides, in spite of making the full payment for the raw materials delivery of the same was not made by the OP in its entirety. The Complainant reportedly received raw materials worth Rs.1,50,000/-.

The Complainant states that faulty machine and shortage of raw materials compelled him to shut down his factory and incur substantial financial loss.

In spite of repeated persuasion the issue remained unresolved. Initially the OP assured that the balance raw materials would be delivered within a short time but gradually in course of time the OP started to show an indifferent attitude to the issue.

Consideringthe OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service and unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of the entire consideration price of Rs.6,53,800/-, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental trauma and harassment and to pay cost of litigation which is not specified.

The Complainant is a resident of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.                                                                                     

Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit (treated as BNA on request),certain annexed documents viz. purported tax invoice, legal notice sent to the OP and exchange of purported e-mails are perused. No other annexure appears to have been filed by the Complainant.

However it has already been mentioned in this order that the only OP preferred to shun the case proceeding and eventually the case ran ex parte against him.

Materials on records are perused. The Complainant nowhere in his complaint petition and the evidence on affidavit has mentioned that the business he is involved is the sole source of his livelihood. No material evidence in this regard has been filed either. On the other hand it transpires on examination of the Complaint petition that the purchase was made for commercial purpose.

Though it is claimed in the body of the Complaint petition that order details and payment details are annexed as ‘Annexure B’, no such documents have been filed by the Complainant.

The Copy of the Tax Invoice filed by the Complainant is devoid of any signature, details of mode of transport and details of delivery challan.

Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that the instant petition does not deserve consideration and also suffers from insufficient documentation.

The veracity of the statements incorporated in the complaint petition appears questionable. After all it could in no way be established that the business was the sole source of livelihood of the Complainant petitioner.

Hence it is

ORDERED

that the complaint case No.58/2022 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in.