Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission. 

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a permanent resident of this jurisdiction. The Complainant has “Batasa” production unit to lead Complainant’s livelihood by himself. The Opposite Party is the manufacturer of “Automatic Batasa Machine” being 20 feet in length. The Opposite Party gave an attractive advertisement in “ You Tube” that his said “Batasa Machine” will give a huge quantities of “Batasa” five quintals Batasa Per hour. The complainant being attracted by the said advertisement of the Opposite Party agreed to purchase the said “Batsa Machine” for Rs. 3,20,000/- and accordingly the complainant purchased one said “Batsa Machine” on 17.07.2022 by paying full amount and the Opposite Party delivered the same on 17.07.2022. After 2/3 days of delivery ofthe said “Batsa Machine” the workers/engineers came to the complainant’s address to install the said machine. Ultimately they set up the said machine, but due to some technical fault the said “Batsa Machine” did not start and as such there was no production of “Batsa”. Then the Opposite Party gave an undertaking on 03.08.2022 to change the said machine. On 04.08.2022 the worker of the Opposite Party namely Sri Bidyut Kumar Ghosh S/O Dilip Kumar Ghosh of Vill. Balarampur P.S. & Dist. Bankura gave a written undertaking to change said faulted machine by giving another new machine within 30/45 days from 04.08.2022 and he took the said machine to the Opposite Party on the same day. Thereafter the Opposite Party gave an Advocate’s letter on 20.09.2022 to the complainant to replace the same within seven days after receiving the Advocate’s Letter. After expiry of the said days the Ld. Advocate of the complainant gave a letter on 30.09.2022 to the opposite party to deliver the said “New Batsa Machine”. But the opposite party did not supply New “Batsa Machine” to the complainant till 10.01.2023 then the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant again requested the Opposite Party to deliver the same by a letter dated 11.01.2023, but till now the opposite party did not give any reply or deliver the said machine and as such the opposite party has done unfair trade practice for which the complainant have been suffering from mental agony and financial loss. The cause of action has been arising on and from 17.07.2022. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint under section 35 of the C P Act 2019 praying for directing the Opposite Party, to return the value of said “Batsa Machiner” of Rs. 3,20,000/- with 10% interest from 17.07.2022 to the complainant till realization ,to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant for mental agony, to pay a litigation cost of Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant for running this case.

        Notice of the case was duly served upon the op, however the O.P. preferred to see that the case is decided ex-parte against it.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                                            2.    Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused and assessed the complaint on affidavit, evidence of the complainant, and documents on record.

We have given thoughtful consideration of the ex-parte argument of Ld Advocate for complainant.

Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record, it is evident that  the complainant being a consumer has alleged unfair trade practice against the op; the bundle of facts indicate that this case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

On scanning and evaluation of the evidence, it appears that the complainant has alleged on oath that The complainant being attracted by the said advertisement of the Opposite Party agreed to purchase the said “Batsa Machine” for Rs. 3,20,000/- and accordingly the complainant purchased one said “Batsa Machine” on 17.07.2022 by paying full amount and the Opposite Party delivered the same on 17.07.2022. After 2/3 days of delivery of the said “Batsa Machine” the workers/engineers came to the complainant’s address to install the said machine. Ultimately they set up the said machine, but due to some technical fault the said “Batsa Machine” did not start and as such there was no production of “Batasa”. Then the Opposite Party gave an undertaking on 03.08.2022 to change the said machine. On 04.08.2022 the worker of the Opposite Party namely Sri Bidyut Kumar Ghosh S/O Dilip Kumar ghosh of Vill.Balarampur P.S. & Dist. Bankura gave a written undertaking to change said faulted machine by giving another new machine within 30/45 days from 04.08.2022 and he took the said machine to the Opposite Party on the same day. Thereafter the Opposite Party gave an Advocate’s letter on 20.09.2022 to the complainant to replace the same within seven days after receiving the Advocate’s Letter. After expiry of the said days the Ld. Advocate of the complainant gave a letter on 30.09.2022 to the opposite party to deliver the said “New Batsa Machine”. But the opposite party did not supply New “Batsa Machine” to the complainant till 10.01.2023 then the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant again requested the Opposite Party to deliver the same by a letter dated 11.01.2023, but till now the opposite party did not give any reply or deliver the said machine and as such the opposite party has done unfair trade practice for which the complainant have been suffering from mental agony and financial loss. The above evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged. The money receipt dated 17.07.2022 ( annexure -1) shows that the complainant  purchased said “Batasa Machine” on 17.07.2022 by paying full amount and the Opposite Party delivered the same on 17.07.2022.The undertaking signed by one Bidyut Kumar Ghoshon behalf of the op on 04.08.2022 ( annexure-3) and reply to Complainant’s Advocate letter by op’s Ld Advocate on12.10.2022 ( annexure-6) clearly support the versions of the complainant on oath . The OP has committed unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant.

  Consequently,the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for to the extent that , to get return of the value of said “Batasa Machine” to the tune of Rs.3,20,000/- along with simple interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of filing of this case  till realization , compensation of Rs. 10,000/-  for mental agony, and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- for running of this case.

Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That CC/14 of 2023 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OP.

        The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay a sum Rs.3,20,000/- as purchase value of the said “Batasa Machine” along with simple interest @ 10 % per annum over the said amount from the date of filing of this case  till realization, compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-to the complainantwithin 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution in terms of section 71 of the C P Act 2019 or to initiate a proceeding under section 72 of the C P Act 2019 .

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.