BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: Sri Patil Vithal Rao, B.Sc., LL.B.,President

Smt. Meena Ramanathan, B.Com., Lady Member

              Sri G.Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc., B.Ed.,LL.B.,PGADR (NALSAR),Member

Tuesday, the 21^st day of May, 2013

CC. No. 45 of 2012

Between:

Sri Konduri Santosh Kumar S/o Balaiah,

Aged: 30 years, Occ: Business,

R/o Near Chittaramma Temple, Beside Bus Stand,

Ramayampet village & Mandal, District Medak.                       …. Complainant

And

1. The Managing Director, Al-Ameen Traders,

# 27, Laxmi Garden, PVR Nagar,

Rajagopalapuram, Pudukkottai – 622 003,

Tamil Nadu.

2. The Branch Manager,

Andhra Bank, Branch Ramayampet,

District Medak.                                                         … Opposite parties

(Opposite party No. 2 is only a formal party and

no relief is sought against it.)

           This case has come up for hearing on 10.05.2013 in the presence of Sri M. Goverdhan & Associates, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite party No. 1 was set exparte for his absence and non representation since third date of hearing. On perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

       O R D E R

(Per se G. Sreenivas Rao, Member)

         This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party No. 1 to replace the machine or return back Rs. 6.40 lakhs with interest @ 24% p.a. and to pay a sum of Rs. 1.30 lakhs towards damages and Rs. 1.00 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and other maladies caused by opposite party No. 1 along with costs.

The brief averments of the case are:

1.        That the complainant purchased a paper cup making machine for Rs. 6.40 lakhs from opposite party No. 1 company, with mortgage loan from opposite party No. 2/bank. The opposite party No. 1 delivered the machine on 14.12.2011. The said machine carries a warranty period for one year. Since purchase of the machine, as it started giving troubles, the complainant made several complaints and the opposite party No. 1 sent his mechanic thrice to repair the paper cup machine but despite all this, still the machine is not in a in a working condition. So the complainant intimated the opposite party No. 1 either to repair or replace the same as this occured during warranty period.

2.          Though the machine is defunct, the complainant is made to pay loan amount with interest thereby losing Rs. 50,000/- another Rs. 50,000/- for the workers and Rs. 30,000/- is also lost on account of rent as such Rs. 1.30 lakhs accounted for damages due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party No.1. Adding to this, the complainant also stated that he had lost his reputation in the society as he was unable to keepup his promise to several people to provide employment.

3.          The complainant further submitted that he also got issued legal notice dt. 29.08.2012, to the opposite party No. 1, calling upon him to replace the machinery and pay the amount of Rs. 1.30 lakhs towards damages. The opposite party No. 1 not responded to that causing deficiency in service.

4.          The complainant also submits that since the transaction took place through opposite party No. 2 at Ramayampet, Medak district, therefore, this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Hence the complainant prayed for the relief as given in the complaint.

2.             The counsel for the opposite party  No. 1 filed vakalat and from the 3^rd date of hearing, he stopped representing the case and as such after six adjournments, the opposite party No. 1 was set exparte at seventh date of hearing.

3.         The complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked his documents as Exs. A1 to A7 and arguments were heard but the complainant not filed written arguments.

4.             Now the point for consideration is, whether the complainant liable to prove the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 1? If so, To what relief?

Point:

5.          The complainant purchased a paper cup making machine from opposite party No. 1 with the help of mortgage loan from opposite party No. 2, for Rs. 6.40 lakh. The said machine was delivered on 14.12.2011. The machine carries one year warranty. Ever since its purchase, it started giving troubles. The opposite party No. 1 also attended to repairs for three (3) times, even then the machine could not be set right. So the complainant insisted for replacement of the machine or refund his investment (Rs. 6.40 lakhs) and damages to the tune of Rs. 1.30 lakhs along with compensation for mental agony and hardships and even insisted on the costs.

6.         In support of his claim, the complainant submitted Ex. A1 being the delivery note dt. 14.12.2011 for Rs. 1,27,450/- and Rs. 5,00,000/- (2^nd sheet). This document is in the name of M/s Sri Balaji Products (Buyer), and Ex. A2 is the legal notice to opposite party No. 1, dated. 29.08.2012, The Ex. A3 is the reply notice of the opposite party No. 1 dated 01.11.2012, and Ex. A4 is the courier slip dated. 30.08.2012. The Ex. A5 & A6 are the two cash receipts for Rs. 50,000/- each dated 08.09.2011 and 14.09.2011 respectively, issued by opposite party No. 1 and Ex. A7 is the letter of sanction dated 30.11.2011 issued by the opposite party No. 2/bank.

7.              On careful perusal  of the case, the Exs. A1 to A7 prove that the complainant availed loan from opposite party No. 2 and purchased the paper cup making machine from opposite party No. 1. Evidently the said availment of loan is under MSME but not a mortgaged loan as mentioned in the complaint.  Secondly, the complainant alleged that the opposite party No. 1 did not respond to his legal notice, which is incorrect, The Ex. A3 is the reply notice of the opposite party No. 1 and this was filed by complainant himself. The opposite party No. 1 in the said reply alleges that the complainant had employed inefficient workers and hence the machine was spoiled despite attending to repairs by his company. However this stand has no value since he failed to contest the case after filing the vakalat by his counsel. This attitude of the opposite party No. 1 creates suspicion, as to why he avoided to contest?

8.            In view of the circumstances discussed above, the Forum opines, that the defunct machine needs to be replaced by the opposite party No. 1 as it falls in the warranty period and opposite party No. 1 is duty bound in this regard. Thus the complainant is able to prove deficiency in service against the opposite party No. 1 and as such deserves appropriate relief from the Forum.

9.              In the result, the complaint is allowed, and the opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace the machine and pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardships and also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards cost. Time for compliance: one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

                    Dictated to Stenographer, after transcription and correction the order is pronounced by us in the open court today on this the  21^st day of May, 2013.

      MALE MEMBER     LADY MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                 WITNESS EXAMINED

For the complainant:                                            For the opposite parties:-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the complainant:                                                   For the opposite parties:-

      MALE MEMBER                     LADY MEMBER                   PRESIDENT