Orissa

Debagarh

CC/30/2018

Sapan Kumar Sahu, S/o-Dakhabandhu Sahu, aged about 28 yrs - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Laxmi Engineering Works - Opp.Party(s)

S.K. Biswal

24 Feb 2020

ORDER

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH

C.C NO- 30/2018

Present;-      Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member(W) and Smt. Arati Das, Member.

 

Sapan Kumar Sahu, aged about 28 years,

S/O-Dukhabandhu Sahu,

Vill-Dhauragoth, P.o-Rengalbeda,

P.s-Reamal, Dist-Deogarh.                                                             …Complainant

 

                              Vrs.

The Proprietor,

Laxmi Engineering Works,

86 Shubh Industrial Estate,

Near Zavery Estate, G.I.D.C,Kathwada,

Ahmedabad, Gujurat-382430.                                                       …Opp.  Party.

 

             Counsel for the parties :

               For the Complainant :        Sri. S.K Biswal & associates

               For the Op. Party :               None.

 

 

DATE OF HEARING :18.02.2020, DATE OF ORDER ; 24.02.2020

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT:-   Brief facts of this case is that the Complainant being an unemployed person and for his self employment he decided to establish a Fly Ash Brick making unit in his village. He availed a loan of Rs.23,75,000/- from IDBI Bank, Deogarh branch for the said purpose. On dtd. 01.12.2017 he has purchased the said machine for Rs.19,47,000/- and paid Rs.70,000/- for the transportation .The machine has two years manufacturer warranty from the date of purchase, where the O.P has to provide service  free of cost in the first year but in the second year, only  the Complainant has to pay the material cost, travelling, lodging, etc. to the O.P. After one month of installation, the jack of the machine got broken and the manufacturing of fly ash brick was affected. The Complainant lodged a complaint with the customer care centre who sent a mechanic to repair the same. Again on dtd. 08.02.2018, when the same problem was found, another complain was registered with the O.P but this time the O.P neither responded to the complaint nor repaired the machine .The Complainant got the defective jack repaired from a private workshop on payment of service charges. In spite of having a valid warranty card the Complainant could not get proper services from the O.P.  The earning of the Complainant got affected due the defect since seven months and he and his family is going through financial hardship. Now the Complainant wants replacement of the defective machine in place of a brand new Fly Ash Brick making machine or refund of an amount of Rs 19,50,000/- towards the cost of the machine. The O.P is set exparte as he failed to attend the Forum in spite of getting the registered notice. So, he is not interested to context the case.

 

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.1986?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant is a Consumer as he has purchased Fly Ash Brick making machine from the O.P. for self-employment. It is seen from the commercial term and conditions that the O.P will provide 24 months warranty from the date of supply against any manufacturing defects or bad workmanships but the warranty does not cover any accidental damage. The machinery items were delivered by the O.P on dtd. 01.12.2017. The defect of the machine detected just after month of the date of purchase within the warranty period. The second complaint was also lodged by the Complainant on dtd 08.02.2018 within the warranty period. As per terms and conditions, the O.P is responsible for any manufacturing defects or bad workman ship but the O.P was not taking any effective step to remove the manufacturing defect of the alleged part i.e the main jack or to replace the same, rather he remained silent over the matter which amount to gross negligence on the part of the O.P. It also amounts to “Deficiency in Service” u/s 2(1)(g) on the part of the O.P and his trade practice is not fair 2(1)(r). In the said circumstances the complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed exparte against the O.P. and we order as under:-

 

ORDER

The complaint Petition is allowed. Under the circumstances we hereby direct the O.P to replace the defective “Main Jack” of the Fly Ash Brick making machine with a brand new defect free Main Jack of same model and make or refund the cost of the said Jack the Complainant. Further the O.P is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs)towards the compensation for loss, mental pain and agony and Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand)towards cost of litigation.  All the above direction are to be complied within 45 (Forty five) days from receipt of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.      

 

               Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.

               Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 24^th of February, 2020 under my hand and seal of this Forum.

 

I      agree,                                         I     agree,

                                   

 MEMBER(W).                                 MEMBER.                                          PRESIDENT.

 

              Dictated and Corrected

              by me.

 

                                                          PRESIDENT.