DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of August 2021ted this the 1st day of March 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 21/10/2019
CC /248/2019
A.Prajith Kumar,
Proprietor,
Star Machine Tools, - Complainant
G.K.Tower, 14/876(9),
Stadium Bypass Road,
Palakkad.
(Adv.P.Sreeprakash)
V/s
Wat Tech Solutions
Sub castle 32-1,
Immanuel Street,
Thuckalay (PO),
Nagarkovil,
Tamilnadu - 629 175.
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A, Member
Brief facts of the complaint
The complainant is the proprietor of Star Machine Tools and is surviving with the income from this business. The complainant had placed an order with the opposite party for the purchase of a water treatment plant RO 500LPH. The opposite party sent a reply to the order of the complainant dated 29/01/2018 agreeing to supply water processing system 500LPH with RO, with SS Body for an amount of Rs.1,65,000/-. The opposite party claimed an amount of Rs.4,000/- as the cost for erecting and commissioning the water processing system. All the terms and conditions with regard to the purchase was mentioned in the reply letter sent by the opposite party. The complainant made an advance payment of Rs.30,000/- through RTGS towards the amount quoted in the letter and the complainant sent a mail to the opposite party assuring the balance payment. On 01/02/2019, the opposite party supplied the RO plant 500LPH. A sum of Rs.82,600/- including GST was payable towards the price of the machine. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on 19/09/2018, Rs.70,000/- on 19/01/2019 and Rs.30,000/- on 12/02/2019 towards the bill. All these payments were made by RTGS transfer from Union Bank of India, Palakkad Main Branch. Even after receiving excess amount than the cost of the RO plant, the opposite party did not supply the remaining accessories mentioned in their letter dated 29/01/2018. The purpose of functioning of the RO plant will not be served without accessories. Repeated oral requests made by the complainant were in vain and the complainant was constrained to buy accessories from other sellers. Instead of Rs.47,400/- the complainant had to pay a sum of Rs.56,371/- including freight.
As per the reply letter, the delivery period was 07 days from the date of receipt of advance. The opposite party did not deliver the accessories even after the expiry of months and it is clearly deficiency in service on their part. An excess of amount of Rs.47,400/- is with the opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered a loss of Rs.1 lakh. A registered lawyer notice was sent to the opposite party on 20/07/2019 and it was returned stating ‘Door Locked’.
Hence this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.47,400/- with interest at 18% per annum and for getting a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay the cost of this compliant.
Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The notice to the opposite party returned stating ‘left’. After that, fresh address was produced by the complainant and the notice sent to the opposite party in the fresh address returned stating ‘unclaimed’. Hence it is deemed to be served. The opposite party’s name called, absent and the opposite party was set ex-parte.
Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A9 marked (A7 subject to admissibility)
and evidence closed. Then argument notes filed and it was taken for orders. After that it was suomoto reopened for further hearing. Complainant produced another document and filed IA 101/21 to reopen the evidence and IA 102/21 to receive the document produced by him in evidence. Both IAs allowed. Complainant filed additional affidavit and the document is marked as Ext.A10.
Main issues arising for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- If so, what is the relief as to cost/Compensation?
Issues 1&2
Heard the complainant; perused the affidavit, documents and notes of argument filed by the complainant.
The opposite party supplied the R.O. plant 500 LPH to the complainant on 1/2/2019. Ext.A7 is the customer copy of the ‘INVOICE’ No.120 dated 01/02/2019 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per the invoice, the cost of the RO plant 500 LPH is Rs.82,600/-. According to the complainant, he paid Rs.30,000/- on 19/9/2018, Rs.70,000/- on 19/1/2019 and Rs.30,000/- on 12/2/2019 towards the bill and all these payments were made by RTGS transfer from Union Bank of India, Palakkad main branch. This is clear from Ext.A10, statement of account of the complainant with Union Bank Bank of India, Palakkad. Thus he paid a total of Rs.1,30,000/- to the opposite party. So an excess amount of Rs.47,400/- is with opposite party. As per the complainant’s contention, the opposite party did not supply the remaining accessories even after repeated requests and the purpose of functioning the R.O.Plant could not be served without accessories.
From Ext.A1 offer letter issued by the opposite party for the water treatment plant RO 500LPH, it can be seen that the delivery period is 7 days from the date of receipt of advance. The complainant made the advance payment of Rs.30,000/- on 19/9/2018 which is clear from Ext.A10. According to the complainant, even though the opposite party had supplied the R.O. plant on 1/2/2019, they did not supply the accessories mentioned in the offer letter. So even after receiving excess amount, the opposite party did not deliver the accessories which necessitated the complainant to purchase it from other shops to make the plant functioning. So there is a clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as they had violated the terms of the contract. The complainant was forced to purchase the accessories from other shops which would have definitely caused additional expenses. Ext.A2, the Tax invoice issued by ‘Geo Machines and Kitchen Equipments’ shows that the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.15,771/- for purchasing the SS storage Tank 500 Ltr capacity and Ext.A3 tax invoice issued by ‘Jai Maruthi Industries’ and Ext.A4 invoice from ‘Point Sales and Services’ shows the purchase of accessories worth Rs.32,600/-. As per the complaint, the complainant spent an amount of Rs.56,371/- including freight for buying accessories from other sellers. So the acts of the opposite party had caused financial loss to the complainant and the opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that.
As the opposite party remained exparte, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to refund the excess amount of Rs.47,000/- with 9% interest from 12/2/2019, (the date of last payment by the complainant to the opposite party) till realization. We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for loss suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and to pay Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred) as cost of this complaint.
The order shall be executed within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due to them from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of August 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Offer letter dated 29/1/18 issued by opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A2 – Copy of Tax invoice dated 25/4/19 issued by Geo machine and Kitchen Equipments
Ext.A3 – Copy of Tax invoice dated 27/4/2019 issued by Jai Maruthi Industries
Ext.A4 – Copy of GST Invoice dated 4/6/19 issued by Point Sales & Services
Ext.A5 – E way bill dated 1/2/19 issued by opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A6 – E way bill dated 1/2/19 issued by opposite party to the complainant
Ext.A7 – Invoice dated 1/2/19 issued by opposite party to complainant
Ext.A8 – E mail dated 20/9/18 sent by complainant to the opposite party
Ext.A9 – Lawyer notice sent to opposite party
Ext.A10 – Statement of accounts of the complainant with Union Bank of India, Palakkad from 1/9/2018 to
22/10/2018.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite Party
NIL
Witness examined on the side of complainant
NIL
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
NIL
Cost : Rs.2,500/-
