District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa

C.C. No.31/2015

Md. Alamgir…………..…………………………………Complainant

                                                                                      Sadar Bazar, P.O-Chaibasa, P.S-Sadar, Chaibasa,

                                                                                       Dist.West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.Pin:- 833201

Vrs.

 Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar, Proprietor URS Technology of India………………O.P. No.1

  Nandan Kumar Sarkar brother of Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar ……….….……….O.P No.2

Both residents of 317, R.K Pally, Sanarpur, Kolkata-700150, West Bengal.

                                                                           Advocate of the Complainant……………………S. C. Mishra, Advocate

                                                                            Advocate of the Opposite Party ………………… None (Ex-Parte)

                                                                           Chaibasa, Dated: …22^nd February 2022………………

JUDGMENT (Ex-Parte)

     This case has been filed by Complainant Md. Alamgir against O.P. Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar, Proprietor URS Technology of India and Nandan Kumar Sarkar brother of Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar situated both residents of 317, R.K Pally, Sanarpur, Kolkata-700150, and West Bengal for an award of Rs.500000.00 including physical mental and economical harassment against O.P. for their deficiency of service.

     Briefly stated case of the complainant is that he has purchased one Flex Printing Machine (old) including Nokia Head (new) 4 pieces size 3:2 including stand and roll feet for which he paid Rs.443470.00 only for the above machine and accessories including cost of installation in his shop premises.  Further that he purchased the above machine and accessories as per quotation. Further Bill No.60 dated 20.04.2015, 21.06.2015 was issued in this connection by O.P.  Further that after purchasing the machine and accessories he brought them to his shop premises for installation but despites several reminders and request, O.P. did not install the machine due to which he suffered mental, physical and economic harassment and further that he sustained loss of Rs.500000.00 due to deficiency of service caused by O.P. and he is entitled to get Rs.500000.00 from the O.P.  Therefore instant case is being filed for above mentioned relief.

     After admission of the case notice was issued to the O.P. through registered post with A/D and same was returned unserved with endorsement that “Not Claimed”.  Notice was sent on 24.08.2015 and the same was returned on 08.09.2015 despite issuance of notice through registered A/D twice neither O.P.s appeared nor any show-cause has been filed on behalf of the O.P.s Then vide order dated 22.12.2017 proceeding of the case stood ex-parte against the O.P. and O.P. was directed to adduce evidences in this case in support of his complaint.

     Complainant has adduced his affidavited evidence and Xerox copies of the documentary evidence which have been marked exhibit in this case.

     Since proceeding of this case is going on ex-parte against O.P. so whatever evidence have been adduced on behalf of the complainant those evidences will be basis for giving finding in this case.

FINDING

     On perusal of case record we find that complainant has furnished affidavited evidence and affidavited evidences goes to show that he has stated on oath that he is complainant of this case and he has filed case against O.P. Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar, Proprietor URS Technology of India and Nandan Kumar Sarkar brother of Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar for a relief of Rs.500000.00 only including machine price and mental, physical and economical harassment caused by the O.P.  Further that as per terms and conditions of the policy O.P. has to install purchase machine in complaint’s shopping complex but neither machine was installed nor other accessories stood supplied by the O.P. for smooth functioning of the machine and this conduct of the O.P. is deficiency of service and also such act of O.P. caused him physical, mental and economic harassment and he is entitled to get Rs.500000.00 from the O.P.

     In support of complaint case complainant has filed his affidavited evidence in which he has supported his complaint maintaining therein that he has placed an order to purchase One Flex Printing Machine (Old) including Konica Head (New) 4 pieces Flex Media and Ink for which he paid Rs.443470.00 on different dates.  Further that after receiving fix amount O.P. who is owner of the URS Technology of India supplied only Old Flex Printing Machine and other articles as mentioned in above complaint case had not been supplied.  Further as per the terms and conditions above machine was also not installed at his shop by the mechanic of O.P. due to which complainant suffered economic, mental and physical loss.  Further that due to not installing the machine as well as supplying other accessories complainant has suffered loss of Rs.500000.00 and accordingly he has claimed monitory compensation above amount from the O.P.

     Further in support of the above contention documentary evidence have also been filed which have been marked exhibit as follows:-

1. Xerox copy of quotation dated 01.03.2015 given by O.P. to complainant (Exhibit 1).
2. Xerox copy of Terms and Conditions given by O.P. to complainant (Exhibit 2).
3. Xerox copy issued by the O.P. in favour of the complainant showing part payment regarding Bill of the Old Flex Machine including Konica Head (Exhibit 3).
4. Xerox copy of Bill issued by the O.P. in favour of the complainant regarding selling of One Flex Printing Machine (Old) Konica Head (Exhibit 4).
5. Xerox copy of Bank Draft issued by Union Bank of India in favour of O.P. for Rs.50000.00 only dated 02.03.2015 (Exhibit 5).
6. Xerox copy of Cheque issued by the complainant bearing Cheque No.000031 dated 08.04.2015 worth Rs.60000.00 (Exhibit 6).
7. Xerox copy of Bank Deposit Slip dated 17.04.2015 deposited in the account of O.P. bearing Account No.913020007950154 for Rs.20000.00 only (Exhibit 8).
8. Xerox copy of Bank Deposit Slip by complainant on 19.03.2015 for Rs.70000.00 (Exhibit 9).
9. Xerox copy of Cheque bearing No.007459 of Union Bank of India issued in favour of the O.P. for Rs.150000.00 dated 12.03.2015 in which receiving has been given on behalf of the O.P. (Exhibit 10).
10. Xerox copy of Treasury Challan for Rs.18350.00 only (Exhibit 11).
11. Legal Notice issued by the complainant to O.P. regarding requesting installing the sold Flex Machine and supplying other accessories within 15 days, failing which complainant will take legal and criminal action against him (Exhibit 12).
12. Xerox copy of Bank Statements regarding transaction from the S. B. Account of the complainant which has been marked as Exhibit 13.

     After perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant it is clear that O.P. has issued quotation for selling to the complainant One Flex Printing Machine (Old) including Konica Head (New) 4 pieces along with valued added tax (as Exhibit 1).  Further Exhibit 2 which also terms and conditions mentioned therein goes to show that out of several terms and conditions one condition is that, after delivery and installation of the machine warranty period will run up to one year.

     Further instruction and required services will be provided on behalf of the O.P. with condition that travelling charges shall have to be bear by purchaser and after warranty period if any spare parts servicing of the machine will require that shall be provided by the O.P. against necessary charges and cost and other conditions has been mentioned regarding mode of payment and Exhibit 4 also shows that O.P. has raised will in favour of the complainant for above mentioned machine and Konica Head including VAT which amounting Rs.367000.00 only.  Other Exhibits i.e, Exhibit 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 goes to show that complainant has paid required amount for above machines as well as necessary accessories which amounts Rs.440000.00 and Treasury Challan shows payment of Rs.18350.00 only towards VAT/Sale Tax paid, amount become Rs.460000.00 including VAT and State Sale Tax.  These documents also goes to show that some amount has been received by the O.P. directly and receiving has been given by Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar or Nandan Kumar Sarkar (brother of Ujjwal Kumar Sarkar).  Further cheque amount above mentioned have been cleared from the S. B. Account dated 14.03.2015, 23.04.2015 and 19.03.2015.

     On perusal of the above documents it is crystal clear that O.P. has sold above mentioned Old Flex Machine as well as other accessories in favour of the complainant and it is also shows that O.P. did not comply other terms and conditions mentioned in Exhibit 2, resulting which complainant could not made any business work from the purchased machine and he made request to O.P. for install mentioned machine and supply of accessories and lastly he also sent legal notice for the above purpose to the O.P. despite legal notice when neither installation of machine was done nor accessories stood supplied  by the O.P. thereafter instant case has been filed by the complainant against O.P.

     It has earlier been mentioned that proceeding this case is going on ex-parte, so whatever the oral and documentary evidences have been adduced on behalf of the complainant we cannot disbelieved above documents as some facts have been stated on oath and nobody on behalf of O.P. was present to rebuttal the above documents.

     So on the basis of discussion and keeping in view documents adduced on behalf of the complainant we have come to the conclusion that complainant has purchased One Flex Printing Machine (Old) including Konica Head (New) 4 pieces and also some accessories for which he paid required money to O.P.s through Bank Draft, Cheques and through Cash Deposits in the Bank and obtain deposit slip and in some papers i.e. acknowledgement of receiving on behalf of the O.P., so purchase and selling is clear from the above mentioned documents and payment is also been made as per the terms and conditions mentioned in Exhibit 2.  Further as per the affidavited statement of complainant O.P. has not installed the sold machine by sending expert and necessary accessories was also not supplied due to which complainant suffered economic loss and physical and mental harassment.  Further we are of the view that certainly this is deficiency of the service caused by the O.P. to the complainant and in our considerd opinion claimant is entitled for relief in this case.

     Accordingly it is therefore.

ORDER

     That the case is decreed (ex-parte) in favour of the complainant against the O.Ps. and O.Ps. are directed to make the sold machine workable after installing and supply the accessories within one month from the date of receiving of the judgment failing which complainant will be entitled for an award of Rs.440000.00(Four lack forty thousand only) @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment till final realization.  Further complainant is awarded Rs.10000.00 (Ten thousand only) as litigation cost and Rs.10000.00 (Ten thousand only) as compensation towards mental and physical harassment.

     Let copy of this judgment be sent to the O.Ps. through Speed Post or Registered Post with A/D and free copy to Complainant for their information and compliance.

                                                                   Rajiv Kumar                                                              Vijai Kumar Sharma

                                                                    (Member)                                                                       President