Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Room No. 208 2^nd Floor, District Administrative Complex, Tarn Taran

Consumer Complaint No  :    39 of 2019

Date of Institution                      :   20.06.2019

Date of Decision               :   25.09.2019

M/s KSP Technologies, 1-A, Focal point, Tarn Taran through its partner Harbhajan Singh son of Tara Singh resident of 1-A, Focal Point, Tarn Taran.

                                                                             …..Complainant

                             Versus

1. Vishvkarma Machine Tools, 37, Industrial Estate, Ambala Cant. through its CEOs Mr. Dharampal and Mr. Karam Chand.
2. Mr. Dharampal, CEO, Vishvkarma Machine Tools, 37 Industrial Estate, Ambala Cantt.
3. Mr. Karam Chand, CEO, Vishvkarma Machine Tools, 37, Industrial Estate, Ambala Cant.

                                                                             …Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section  11, 12, 13 and 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:               Sh. Charanjit Singh, President

Smt. Jaswinder Kaur, Member

For Complainant                     Sh. G.S. Walia Advocate.

For Opposite Parties               Exparte.

ORDERS:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The complainant M/s KSP Technologies, 1-A has filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called   as 'the Act') against Vishvkarma Machine Tools, 37, Industrial Estate, Ambala Cant. Through its CEOs Mr. Dharampal and Mr. Karam Chand and others (Opposite parties) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence in service on the part of the opposite parties with further prayer to direct the opposite parties to lift their defective machine and to refund the payment made by the complainant i.e. Rs. 9,42,400/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% p.a. to the complainant and also prayed Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is carrying the business of making pulp molding molds and other products at the above stated address at Tarn Taran. The complainant is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and is running above stated small business.  The opposite parties Vishvkarma machine Tools is dealing in manufacturing and supply of different types of machine tools and Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are its CEOs and are dealings & controlling the business of above said Company. The opposite parties held an exhibition of their products in the month February, 2017 at Ludhiana and the complainant visited the exhibition and liked CNC router machine of Opposite Parties. The price of the said machine was Rs. 6,12,000/- inclusive of all taxes. Later on the complainant made booking of a CNC router machine with opposite parties and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance payment to opposite parties on 07.3.2018. Then, opposite parties delivered the above said machine on 30.3.2017 at the address of the complainant vide Bill No. SA-450 dated 30.3.2017 through transporter Shane Punjab Mini Transport, Amritsar and the complainant transferred the balance sale price Rs. 5,12,000/- to opposite party’s Bank account. The Bill No. SA-450 is of Rs. 6,24,240/-, which opposite parties said is a clerical mistake. But the above said machine did not work. Then at last, opposite parties offered the complainant to exchange the above-said machine with new CNC Milling machine and to pay the additional amount of Rs. 3,30,400/- as new machine is costlier than previous one. The complainant accepted the offer of opposite parties and paid Rs.3,30,400/- to opposite parties and opposite parties delivered the new machine at the address of the complainant and lifted the old one through transporter Dhillon Tempu Transport Service and opposite parties issued a new bill no.36 dated 16.5.2018 of additional amount of Rs.3,30,400/-. The new machine also did not work. The complainant made complaint to opposite parties and opposite parties recalled the machine in opposite parties unit and sent it back after 20 days but even then it did not work. Later on, opposite parties also sent engineer of Delta Company to check the panel fitted in the machine, which is of Delta Company, who checked the panel and stated that the panel is ok but there is some other defect in the machine and asked the complainant to talk to opposite parties. Now opposite parties neither gave any reply to the complaint of the complainant nor replaced the machine. The complainant is suffering a lot due to irresponsible dealing of opposite parties and delay caused by opposite parties from the last about 20 months. The complainant sent legal notice dated 15.12.2018 through his counsel Sh. G.S Walia Advocate regarding the matter in question and informed the opposite parties through notice to lift defective machine and to refund the payment made by the complainant with interest alongwith compensation for loss suffered and harassment caused to the complainant. The opposite parties gave very vague reply to the notice but did not admit the claim of the complainant.  Feeling dissatisfied by the act and conduct of the opposite parties, the complainant perforce has filed this complaint against the opposite parties. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record form A & C as Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-3, Photostat copy of Invoice No. SA-450 dated 30.3.2017 Ex. C-4, Photostat copy of Import Slip dated 30.3.2017 Ex. C-5, Photostat copy of Transport Bill dated 30.3.2017 Ex. C-6, Photostat copy of Invoice dated 16.5.2018 as Ex. C-7, Photostat copy of E-Way Bill dated 16.5.2018 Ex. C-8, Photostat copy of Transport Bill dated 16.5.2018 Ex. C-9, Photostat copy of account statement from 1.4.2016 to 31.10.2017 Ex. C-10, Photostat copy of account statement from 1.4.2016 to 31.10.2017 Ex. C-11, Photostat copy of notice dated 5.12.2018 Ex. C-12, Photostat copy of legal notice dated 11.12.2018 Ex. C-13, Photostat copy of reply to legal notice dated 16.1.2017 Ex. C-14, Affidavit of Harbhajan Singh Ex. C-15.  

3        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties but no one appeared on behalf of opposite parties and consequently, the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.8.2019.

4        We have heard the Ld. counsel for complainant and have also carefully gone through the evidence and documents on the file.

5        The complainant has produced on record his affidavit Ex. C-15 and pleaded that the complainant is carrying the business of making pulp molding molds and other products at the above stated address at Tarn Taran. The complainant is earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and is running above stated small business.  The opposite parties Vishvkarma machine Tools is dealing in manufacturing and supply of different types of machine tools and Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 are its CEOs and are dealings & controlling the business of above said Company. The opposite parties held an exhibition of their products in the month February, 2017 at Ludhiana and the complainant visited the exhibition and liked opposite party’s CNC router machine. He further pleaded in his affidavit that the price of the said machine was Rs. 6,12,000/- inclusive of all taxes. Later on, the complainant made booking of a CNC router machine with opposite parties and paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance payment to opposite parties on 07.3.2018. He further pleaded that, opposite parties delivered the above said machine on 30.3.2017 at the address of the complainant vide Bill No. SA-450 dated 30.3.2017 through transporter Shane Punjab Mini Transport, Amritsar and the complainant transferred the balance sale price Rs. 5,12,000/- to opposite party’s Bank account. The Bill No. SA-450 is of Rs. 6,24,240/- and the invoice dated 30.3.2017 Ex. C-4. But the above said machine did not work. Then at last, opposite parties offered the complainant to exchange the above-said machine with new CNC Milling machine and to pay the additional amount of Rs. 3,30,400/- as new machine is costlier than previous one. The complainant accepted the offer of opposite parties and paid Rs.3,30,400/- to opposite parties vice invoice dated 16.5.2018 Ex. C-7, E-Way Bill System dated 16.5.2018 Ex. C-8 and opposite parties delivered the new machine at the address of the complainant and lifted the old one through transporter Dhillon Tempu Transport Service and receipt issued Dhillon Tempu Transport Service is Ex. C-9. He further pleaded that opposite parties issued a new bill No.36 dated 16.5.2018 Ex. C-7 of additional amount of Rs.3,30,400/-. The new machine also did not work. The complainant made complaint to opposite parties and opposite parties recalled the machine in opposite parties unit and sent it back after 20 days but even then it did not work. Later on, opposite parties also sent engineer of Delta Company to check the panel fitted in the machine, which is of Delta Company, who checked the panel and stated that the panel is ok but there is some other defect in the machine and asked the complainant to talk to opposite party. Now opposite parties neither gave any reply to the complaint of the complainant nor replaced the machine. The complainant is suffering a lot due to irresponsible dealing of opposite parties and delay caused by opposite parties from the last about 20 months. The complainant sent legal notice dated 15.12.2018 Ex. C-13 through his counsel Sh. G.S Walia Advocate regarding the matter in question and informed the opposite parties through notice to lift defective machine and to refund the payment made by the complainant with interest alongwith compensation for loss suffered and harassment caused to the complainant. The opposite parties gave very vague reply to the notice but did not admit the claim of the complainant. The complainant has also placed on record statement of account of the complainant Ex. C-10 which shows that on 7.3.2017 an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, on 30.3.2017 an amount of Rs. 5,12,000/-, on 15.5.2018 an amount of Rs. 3,30,400/- have been debited from the account of complainant in favour of Vishavkarma,  In this way, total amount of Rs. 9,42,400/- has been given by the complainant to the opposite parties qua the machine in question. The complainant has placed on record letter Ex. C12 and legal notice Ex. C-13 addressed to the opposite parties and made complaint to the opposite parties regarding the nonworking of Machine in question. It is further in the pleadings that the defect in the machine in question was a manufacturing defect. The complainant pleaded that it is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

6        The evidence led by the complainant on the file goes unchallenged and un-rebutted as Opposite Parties dare proceeded against exparte in the present complaint and there is no reason on the file as to why the evidence produced by the complainant be not believed. Otherwise also, due notice was issued to the Opposite Parties and opposite parties did not appear in the Forum in order to contest the complaint which shows that the Opposite Parties have nothing to say upon the allegations leveled against them by the complainant. As such, the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint and it stands established on record that the complainant is approaching the opposite parties several times but the opposite parties did not care to resolve the matter, not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged in an unfair trade practice.             

7        The complainant has produced on record invoice dated 16.5.2018 self attested copy of invoice Ex. C-4 which is dated 30.3.2017 and invoice Ex. C-7 which is dated 16.5.2018 which shows that the machine in question suffers defects in a very short period. The perusal of record shows that the problems in the machine in question is occurred in a very short period. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that

“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 has held that

 “when any company had stopped manufacturing the particular model, under those circumstances, there is no other way except to refund of money alongwith interest, compensation and cost.”

 In the instant case, the machine in question started giving troubles within short period. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in  case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that 

“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under section 2(1) (i) ® of the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”

8        It is established on record that machine has inherited manufacture defect and opposite parties have admitted the same and replaced the machine as per Ex. C-7. But the replaced machine was carrying same problem as such, opposite parties have taken the machine for repair and returned after 20 days. But the problem was not rectified and upon this, the opposite parties sent an Engineer of Delta Company to check the panel fitted in the machine, which is of Delta Company, who checked the penal and stated that the penal is OK but there is some other defect in the machine. It also proved that opposite parties have again sent a defective machine with manufacturing defect. During the course of arguments, counsel for the complainant placed on the record invoice of new machine which he was forced to purchase to earn his livelihood. So we are of the considered view that the act of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the opposite parties.

9        In view of above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to refund the price of the machine in question i.e. Rs. 9,42,400/- ( Rs. Nine Lacs Forty two thousand and four hundred only) and complainant will return the old machine in question to the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only) as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs 5,000/- ( Rs. Five Thousand only) as litigation expenses from the opposite parties. Opposite Parties are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.

(Charanjit Singh)         

                             President             (Jaswinder Kaur)

                                                            Member