State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Novel Sewing Machine Company, vs Rukhminibai S. Pawar on 17 April, 2009
1 F.A.1057-04
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing : 23.06.2004
Date of Order : 17.04.2009
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1057 OF 2004
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 45 OF 2004
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALNA.
NOVEL SEWING MACHINE COMPANY,
Through Mr. Bharat Parmar,
R/o. 777, Raviwar Peth,
Pune. ... Appellant
-VERSUS-
Smt. Rukhminibai S. Pawar
R/o. Thakurnagar, Ambad,
Taluka, Ambad,
Dist. Jalna. ...Respondent
Coram : 1) Mr. S.G. Deshmukh, Hon'ble Judicial Member
2) Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present: Adv. Rahul Gandhi, appeared for appellant.
None appeared for respondent.
-::ORAL ORDER::-
Per Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member
1. NOVEL SEWING MACHINE COMPANY, through Mr. Bharat Parmar resident of Pune challenges in this appeal, order passed by District Forum, Jalna in complaint case No.45/2004 decided on 19.05.2004.
2 F.A.1057-04
2. The story of the complainant is as under:-
Rukhminibai Sukhadev Pawar is resident of village Ambad Dist. Jalna. She purchased computerized embroidery machine from appellant on 05.04.2003. The price of said machine was Rs. 1,63,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- at the time of purchase and promised to pay the remaining amount in installments. For the purchase of said machine complainant obtained loan from Sahayog Nagri Patsastha, Ambad. On 15.08.2003 complainant found that button hole making and running stitch could not be done properly on the machine. The running of machine became impossible. This fact is informed to the appellant. Complainant purchased said machine for earning her livelihood. On 20.11.2003 representative of appellant came to Ambad but, he said to complainant that after paying the remaining amount they will repair the machine. At that time complainant paid Rs.9,000/- but her machine was not repaired by the appellant. Due to non working of machine she has suffered loss of Rs.5,000/- per day. She is unable to repay the loan.
Therefore, she issued legal notice on 21.01.2004 to the appellant and demanded Rs.86,000/- as compensation. The said notice was replied by the appellant which was not satisfactory to the complainant therefore, she approached the District Forum by filing complaint on 21.02.2004.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and resisted the claim. It is contended that District Forum Jalgaon has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint as the transaction of purchase of said machine is happened at Pune. Opponents resides at Pune, therefore, complaint should be filed at Pune. It is also contended that complainant failed to complete the 3 F.A.1057-04 transaction by defaulting the payment of price of machine. With ulterior motive of avoiding the payment complaint was filed falsely.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed the appellant to repair the machine within 15 days and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation with 6% p.a. interest and the cost of Rs.500/-.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order original opponent came in appeal.
6. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Adv. Rahul Gandhi, appeared for appellant. None appeared for respondent. On 06.02.2009 appellant is directed to issue the public notice to the respondent accordingly notice was published in daily 'Parshwabhumi' dated 07.04.2009. On 17.04.2009 matter came for final hearing. On this date also respondent was not present. Adv. Rahul Gandhi contended that, complainant purchased the machine is an admitted fact. The price of the machine is Rs.1,67,805/- is also an admitted fact. Complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- only at the time of purchase and she had promised to pay remaining amount within short time. The cheque dated 05.05.2003 of Rs.15,000/- signed by Sow. Meena Pawar was issued in favour of appellant. Again on 05.06.2003 cheque amounting to Rs.19,805/-issued in favour of appellant but, both the cheques were dishonoured. On behalf of complainant V.S. Pawar wrote letter on 19.11.2003 wherein he informed that due to many more problems she could not repay the remaining amount. His father refused to give him money so he could not pay the amount. But, he promised that on 05.12.2003 he will fulfill the promise. Again on 30.12.2003 by letter he promised that on 10.01.2004 he will pay the total remaining amount. On 15.01.2004 the telegram was 4 F.A.1057-04 received from him stating that "my machine was not working since two months, please repair it and take the payment from him. Then suddenly on 21.01.2004 the complainant issued legal notice to the appellant. Adv. Rahul Gandhi contended that the letter dated 19.11.2003 & 30.12.2003 are totally silent about non working of machine.
7. On the other hand complainant repented on her non fulfillment of promise. The representative of appellant Shri. Samir visited the village Ambad on 19.11.2003, though it was agreed between the complainant and appellant that for the repair of machine complainant is to bring the machine at Pune. With the courtesy, the representative of appellant visited the village Ambad with the view that remaining payment also can be recovered and machine will be repaired. But, Shri. V.S. Pawar said that machine is working properly. There is no need of any services. In the letter dated 30.12.2003 complainant again promised to pay the amount on 10.01.2004 therefore, again on 10.02.2004 Shri. Samir came to Ambad. He inquired about the machine Shri. Pawar said that machine is at Jalna and it is working properly. Even then the Samir went to Jalna and completed the servicing and oiling of machine. It is submitted by Adv. Rahul Gandhi that, it is apparent that complainant is not willing to pay remaining amount and with view to avoid the payment of due amount complaint was filed. The said complaint is silent about the defectiveness of the machine and on any deficiency committed by the appellant. The representative of Company visited twice the house of complainant and responded the complaint of the complainant. The complainant did not file any rejoinder or counter to challenge the pleadings and written statement of appellant. Therefore, the complaint is false and filed with ulterior motive. District Forum committed error while allowing the complaint. Therefore, appeal be allowed and complaint be dismissed.
5 F.A.1057-04
8. We heard the argument of Adv. Rahul Gandhi and perused the record. It is an admitted fact that, the price of machine is Rs.1,67,805/-. It is also admitted fact that complainant paid only Rs.1,30,000/- and promise to pay remaining amount within short time. It has come on record that complainant issued two cheques dated 05.05.2003 and 05.06.2003, but both were dishonoured. The letter written by complainant dated 19.11.2003 mentioning that complainant could not pay the amount as promised and if she could not pay amount till 05.12.2003 she herself will return the machine. Again on 30.12.2003 complainant promised to pay the remaining amount. These two letters are silent about defect in the machine. Even there is no whisper about the non working of the machine in those letters. On 15.01.2004 complainant sent telegram and asked the appellant to take the machine for repair and accept the remaining payment. The telegram is dated 15.01.2004 wherein it is mentioned that, since last two months machine is not working. It means that from October-November machine was not working, but, in the complaint complainant made grievance that machine is not working since 15.08.2003. There is no uniformity in the facts of the complaint also.
8. Representative of Company visited the complainant twice, and both the times complainant did not utter a single word about non functioning of machine. But, suddenly on 21.01.2004 complainant sent legal notice and demanded Rs.86,000/- as compensation. The representative of appellant when visited the house of complainant had requested her to bring the machine at Pune for thorough check up, as it was not possible to check the machine at Ambad. It was also agreed between the parties that for free servicing machine should be brought to 6 F.A.1057-04 Pune. Even then representative visited the house of complainant. District Forum did not consider all the facts in right perspective while allowing the complaint. In the light of above observation, we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of appellant.
9. As there is no complaint about any defect in the machine or any deficiency in service committed by the appellant we are of the view that appeal should be allowed. Hence, the order.
- O R D E R -
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint is dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copy of the order be furnished to the parties.
Mrs. Uma S. Bora S. G. Deshmukh
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar
7 F.A.1057-04