State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Bhargava Art Printers vs 1. Guangzhou Amsky Technology Co.Ltd., on 22 November, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.64 OF 2016
Between:
M/s. Bhargava Art Printers,
Multi Colour Offset Printers,
Rep. by its Proprietor T. Satyanarayana,
11-5-422/B1, Beside Pearls Regency Hotel,
Red Hills, Lakdikapool,
Hyderabad-500004. ..Complainant
And
Guanghou Amsky Technology Co., Ltd.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Address: Room 1402,
DongShan Ziyuan,
Commercial Building, No.745 East,
Dongfeng Road, Guangzhou, China.
2. M/s. Monotech Systems Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Sri T.P.Jain, Regd & corporate Office at 3rd floor,
City Centre -66, Thirumalai Road,
T.Nagar, Chennai-600017. India. .Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :Sri Abhay Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Parties Mr. Sadanand Praveen Kumar
Authorized person]- OP2,
OP.No.1-Notice served
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THoUSAND TWENTY Two (Per Hon'ble HON'BLE SRI V.V. SESHUBABU, Member-Judicial) Order (01). This is a complaint filed under Section 17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the Opposite Parties viz.:
1. To place new machinery of the 2015 Make as per the purchase order or direct the Opposite Parties.
2 To pay Rs.40,00,000/- with interest@ 24% p.a., from 12.02.2015 till the date of realization.
3. To award of Rs.20,00,000/- and for costs.2
are as follows:
(02). The brief averments of the complaint The brief averments of the complaint are that Proprietary of M/s. Bhargava Art Mr. T.Satyannarayana is the of Opposite Party Printers; That Opposite Party No.2 is the Dealer Print Pack No.1; That during the days 24th to 26th April-2015 Exhibition was conducted at Chennai Trade Centre at Chennai and The complainant took photos of the machinery exhibited therein which is Amsky Auesetter 832 CTCP along with printed lable, That the complainant purchased Amsky Auesetter 832 CTCP with G& J-85 Plate Proposer with accessories vide Invoice No.HYD/TS/15-16/029, Dated 20.04.2015 but, it was installed in the month of June-2015 only; That after installation of the machinery complainant came to know that it belonged to the model of 2014 but not 2015 inspite of, he placed the purchase order on 12.02.2015; That the complainant further observed that the machine supplied to him was in fact, displayed in the Chennai Trade Centre Exhibition, and it shows instead of a brand new one used and damaged machinery was supplied to him; That after installation it was observed, a printed electric parts like : (1). A printed circuit Board (PCB) Labeled UNICORN EXT VI-6.0, the bearing SI. No.10-100023-0160-0071 which can be found on the right side door besides the display board; and the UNICORN - EXT VI-6.0, board consists of group of serial parts; and out of all the serial parts, one is labeled as decreet_sensor_0 and decreet sensor 1 is connected to the serial part connector (Male) DA-4-2 is preventing the machine to start, and giving out a beep sound which is an alarm in indication that, a paper rolled, and placed in between the gap machine and the PSB was causing damage; That though the collection executives have placed the paper role as a support to the machine, it gives out big noise, when it was turnea on; That the display of machine located at the top right corner was from air requenty showing error due to leakage of air coming work compressor in to the machine; That the machine will not intimated to the further because of the error; that the same was Mr. Steten, Sales and Service staff of the Opposite Parties viz., request to substitute Shyam Prasad and Mr.Raju and others with a That the make or a new machinery but, the requested was refused;
is not mentioned in model of the year of manufacture of machine That the complainant in all the invoice given to the complainant;
Rs.3,05,000/- to the Opposite paid Rs.40,00,000/- and due to pay 26.02.2015 No.2, but not Rs.8,05,000/-; That by Party paid Rs.16,00,000/-, and requested complainant altogether the machine, but Opposite Party Opposite Party No.2 to deliver for the balance amount towards No.2 demanded to issue cheques six blank cheques in the month security and so, complainant gave Rs.24,00,000/-
of February-2015; That then the complainant paid No.2 on different dates, for which obtained to the Opposite Party of the blank receipts; That taking advantage of the availability it misused the same, and issued cheques with Opposite Party No.2, for which a suitable reply was given on legal notice on 16.09.2015 the 30.09.2015; That the complainant ready and willing to pay balance amount of Rs.3,05,000/- subject to replacement of new instructed the Banker; That machinery, and the complainant even a notice was issued to the Opposite Party No.2. On 30.09.2015, on the informing to replace new machine. But, no reply was given said notice by Opposite Party No.2; That the complainant and also Party No.2 by phone, LSCssed the issue with Opposite was That a reply mail y C-mail correspondence on 29.01.2016;
02.02.2016 suggesting the
sent by posite Party No.2 on
the
and inspite of
Opiainant to contact one Mr. Stefen Tata
nat
result came,
1scussion made by the complainant, no fruitful
with a view to
the actions of the Opposite Parties goes to show that That cheat the complainant, a defective machinery was supplied;
lost nis aue to actions of Opposite Party No.2, the complainant Work orders thereby sustained loss for the tune of Rs.8,00,0007 per month, on which he has been earning money for his ively hood, and to cater the needs of the entire family; That the action of the Opposite Party No.2 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; That on 18.02.2016 complainant got issued a legal notice to Opposite Party No.2 by Registered Post with Acknowledgement due and also through Air mail to the Opposite Party No.1 with a demand to the replace the new machine, andto pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-; That Opposite Parties neither replied nor complied with the demand, hence, the complaint.
(03). The brief averments of the written version of Opposite Party No.1 is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; That the complainant is put to strict proof or all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted; That the complainant will not fall under the ambit of consumer as per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; That the complainant purchased the machine for commercial purpose, so on these two grounds the complaint is liable for dismissal; That for the purchase of machinery the Opposite Party No.2 has to received Rs.8,05,000/- in total. That the three cheques 18sucd Complainant was towards partial discharge of the legally entorceable debt, which are bearing NO.066847 to 066849 10r when KS.2,00,000/- each; That those cheques were dishonoured and so, presented on the ground of "payment stopped by drawer, initiated proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act was egal Egmore, against complainant before XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai, and later it was transferred to Fast Track Judge, installation of and Cc.No.764/2016 is pending; The allegations of after installation it defective machinery is a false a statement; That of supply of was running in good condition; That the allegations Centre is also not Demo machinery exhibited in the Chennai Trade signing on the true and correct. That the complainant not installation report is also false. The allegations are made to make a wrongful gain and to defame the reputation of the Opposite Party three No.1, and the complainant not paid Rs.6,00,000/-under cheques and for the said reason Opposite Party No.2 got issued a notice demanding to outstanding amount of legal pay Rs.8,05,000/-, and as the cheques were dishonoured, cc.No.764/2016 was filed for bouncing of cheques before XII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; That to escape the Criminal proceedings this complaint is filed under the Consumer Protection Act; That the Hon 'ble Commission is not having no jurisdiction to try the complaint; That complainant approached the Commission with unclean hands. With these pleas requested to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. (04). Mr. T.Satyannarayana the Proprietor of complainant filed evidence affidavit as Pw1, and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. Evidence affidavit of Mr. Sadanand Praveen Kumar, the Senior xCCutive Accountant of the Opposite party No.2 filed evidence afidavit as Dwl and got marked Ex.B1 to B4. The right to ile Written Version was forfeited for Opposite Party No.l on 02.03.2017. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.
(05). Now the points for determination are:
.Whether the Opposite Party No.2 supplied Demo Machinery with defective parts with the 2015 make?
2. Whether complainant is liable to pay how much amount towards outstanding for the purchase of machinery? if so, to what amount?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2 ?
4. Relief ?
(06). For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint.
(07).PointNo.1: Ex.B4 is the Retail Invoice dated 20.05.2015, and it goes to show that CTCP System Amsky Ausetter -832 CTCP with G & J 85 Plate Processer, and compatible dip was shown at price of Rs.41,00,000/- with Hyderabad, VAT @ 5% equivalent to Rs.2,05,000/- with a grand total Rs.43,05,000/- was supplied; It is the pleading of Pwl that he paid Rs.40,00,000/- and the outstanding amount was only Rs.3,05,000/-. If the payment of Rs.40,00,000/- was established the obvious outstanding amount will be only Rs.3,05,000/- as per Ex.B4. (08). Ex.B3 is the certified copy of complainant in CC.No.764/2016 on the file of XIl Metropolitan Magistrate, passed Fastrack - I, Egmore, Chennai filed against complainant by 1 Opposite Party No.2; In Para-4 of the complaint, it is mentiorned that towards legally enforceable debt Pw1 issued three cheques dated 15.06.2015, 15.07.2015 and 15.08.2015 drawn on SBH, It is further Hyderabad for a sum of each Rs.2,00,000/ mentioned in Para-5, that those cheques were presentea 10 Bank, colection on 28.08.2015 through their Bankers M/s. City on Annasalai Branch, and those cheques were returned unpaid the drawer.
28.08.2015 for the reason of the payment stopped by shown in the The details of the cheques and returned Memos are ist of documents, vide notice dated 16.09.2015 issued by Opposite 30.09.2015 and the Party No.2, reply notice given by Pw1 dated Admittedly, CC.No.764/2016 is delivery confirmation letter.
Ex.B2 is the pending, in which Pw1 even made his appearance. final report in FIR No.91/2017 for the offences under Section 406, referred a s 420 IPC and 153c (3) CRPc., field by complainant was a closed one, due to lack of evidence. The Commission even issued notice to Pwl on the said final report. Ex.B1 is the Complaint Copy of FIR in Crime No.91/2017 dated 20.05.2017 by the Police, The Ex.B2 is the final report on the Ex.B1. It goes to Nampally.
show that, the complaint filed by Pw1 was closed for lack of evidence, and the complaint filed by Opposite Party No.2 for the dishonor of the cheques is still pending. (09). Ex.A1 is the Purchase Order dated 12.02.2015 given specifications of the machine with its accessories with an offer price of Rs.41,00,000/- + 5% VAT. At the bottom of the document, it is mentioned that to supply the machinery, after making full payment only. It means Pwl himself undertaken to receive the machinery, only after making full payment. Ex.A2 is the retail thhe All are Ex.A4 to Ex.B4.
marked a s
and the s a m e is
C the
complainant
infavour of
No.2
CCelpts issued by Opposite Party PWl
altogether
25.05.2015
22.02.2015 to
auring the period
from *
Rs.5,00,000/-
+ Rs.5,00,000/
paid
paid Rs.40,00,000/- (Rs.6,00,000/-
1,00,000*
Rs.15,00,000/- + Rs.2,70,000/-
+ Rs.1.30,000/-+Rs.
Rs.1,00,000/-& + Rs.3,00,000/-) issued on 16.09.2015 is the legal notice dated (10). EXAl4 maae and a demand was behalf of the Opposite Party No.2, to Pw1 cheques dishonor of three with Pwl to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for the notice dated with a costs of Rs.2,500/- Ex.A13 is the reply is mentioned that as pe 30.09.2015 given by Pw1, wherein it liable to pay Rs.3,05,000/ stated Opposite Party No.2 only Pw1 is the total is mentioned that, but not Rs.8,05,000/-. Under Ex.A2 it and towards discharge outstanding amount was at Rs.8,05,000/-
to
of the same the three cheques were issued. So, it is for Dwl
arrived at. As the value of
explain, how the figure Rs.8,05,000/-
the outstanding the three cheques was only Rs.6,00,000/- how Ex.A12 but in was climbed at Rs.8,05,000/- is not explained under with costs the concluding paragraph demanded only Rs.6,00,000/-
the complainant to of the notice of Rs.2,500/-. It is for Pw1 being he paid Rs.40,00,000/-. It is pleaded in the prove that, altogether Ex.A13 regarding the payments made under receipts dated 22.02.2015 at Rs.5,00,000/-, and 12.02.2014 at Rs.6,00,000/-; on on 26.02.2015 at Rs.5,00,000/-. However, It is contended that a different dates, but the dates sum of Rs.24,00,000/- was paid on are not given.
(11). Rs.6,00,000/- datod 12.02.2015 wa» transferred y RTGS, on 27.01.2015; Under Ex.A5 a sum of Rs.5,00,0007 Ws paid under Ch.No.025674, datcd 26.02.2015; Under Ex.A6 a Sum of Rs.15,00,000/- by Ch.No.3226726 dated 04.04.2015; Uac Ex.A2 Rs.2,70,000/- was paid by way of RTGS on 22.09.201 IIkewise under Ex.A8 Rs.1,30,000/- transfcrred by RTGS on 22.04.2015; under Ex.A9 by way of NET R«.1,00,000/- was transferred on 11.05.2015, under Ex.A10 Rs.1,00,000/-was transferred by NEFT ON 21.05.2015, under Ex.A11 Rs.3,00,000/ transferred by NEFT on 25.01.2015. All these exhibits are issued by Opposite Party No.2, and Opposite Party No.2 not questioned the genuineness of the payments. So, it is very clear that Pw1 paid Rs.40,00,000/-; If the Rs.40,00,000/- is paid, the balance will be only Rs.3,05,000/-, It is not the case of Opposite Party No.2 that any of the cheques that were issued under Ex.A2 to All were bounced. Those three cheques mentioned in the Ex.B3 complaint are no way connected to any of the cheques which are part and parcel of reflecting the payment of Rs.40,00,000/-.
(12). Point Nos. 2 & 3: It is clearly and categorically pleaded in the complaint that Pw1 attended Print Pack Exhibition conducted in Chennai trade center at Chennai, during the days 24th to 26th April-2015, where he observed Amsky Auesetter 832 CTCP along with printed lable and took snaps of the same; That after it was installed in his premises, found that the Demo Machinery that he observed in the exhibition center, was installed in his premises instead of a ew one and on the other hand with defective parts. That the defective parts of the machinery are categorically pleaded 10 contended that as the It is also ara-3 of the complaint.
contrary to the
make of 2014,
Pplied machinery is of the
installation
Purchase order under Ex.A1 not even singed on the
is
that the machine
es by informing the same to service people
is denied by
In the written version the
same
COa one.
notes is not 11lea
Pposite Party No.2. However, the installation with tne before this Commission to show that, after satisfying thereon. t machinery and its parts Pw1 subscribed the signature s mportant to note that, whenever any machine is installed, aumost all the Companies are obtaining the signature of the customer to the effect that they have satisfied with the installation and Not filing such running condition of the machinery. documents shows that, the Opposite Party No.2, inspite o available evidence with it, not made efforts to support its pleadings. Naturally, one has to draw an adverse inference against Opposite Party No.2.
(13) Under the Point No.1, it is categorically observed that Pwl was only liable to pay Rs.3,05,000/- but not Rs.8,05,000/-, as mentioned in Para-6 of Page-5 of the written version. Ex.A2 does not disclose the making year of the machine. It is silent to the effect that, either belonged to the years 2014 or 2015 make. So, there is no whatsoever evidence available with Opposite Party No.2, to establish that it supplied or installed a Brand New Machine with its peripheries of the make to 2015; Ex.A16 & A17 are the email correspondence in which Pwl raised the issue contending that the machine is of the old one, and not as per the purchase order, and also raised the issues regarding the deíective machinery. Even, though Opposite Party No.2, and its office authorities informed 11 that the matter will be resolved shortly nothing was done by them. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2 concentrated only on the balance amount payable as at Rs.8,05,000/-, but not discussea about the make of year of the machine as 2015, or not placed any evidence to show that no demo machinery was supplied to Pwl. nstead of settling the issues raised by Pw1, much stress was made regarding the bouncing of three cheques given by Pw1. We already discussed that, the bouncing of cheque three in number in total for Rs.6,00,000/- is no way connected with the transaction under the Ex.A1 & A2. For the bouncing of chques a separate complaint was filed by Opposite Party No.2, under Section 138 N.I. Act, and Pwl also initiated criminal proceedings for cheating etc., Oncewe observed that those cheques are not connected to the transaction under Ex.A1 & A2, their result will no way binding on the result of this complaint. It is for the appropriate court to decide regarding the guilt or no guilt of Pw1 for the bouncing of cheques. Under the wants to guise of the cheque bouncing case, Opposite Party No.2 absolve from its liability in supplying brand new machine, and defective free equipment. The actions of the Opposite Party No.2 amounts to not only deficiency in service and also unfair trade to supply a new defect practice. So, Opposite Party No.2 is liable free machine, or to pay compensation i.e., cost of machine. So, the points are answered accordingly.
Point No.4: The machine was installed in the month of (14).
June-2015. Though it is contended by Pw1 that the machine was not functioning due to defective parts, and became stand still is not established with a documentary evidence. The machine is with Pw1 since June-2015. It was not sent back by Pw1 to Opposite 12 to defective due contended by Pwl arty No.2. It is also not those details are orders, but LIchinery, he had lost several nouce issued reply Pw1 also stated that they have 1Orthcoming.
about tne
No.2 informing
aated 30.09.2015 to Opposite Party
irom
within three months
Supply of defective machinery. It shows Pary tne date of alleged installation, Pw1 questioned Opposite we are in the yea NO.2 for supplying old defective machinery. Now furnish a new 2022, and even if, Opposite Party No.2 is directed to machine with 2015 make, it may not be possible for Opposite Party No.2 to supply a brand new machine of the make 2015. So, S0, awarding alternative relief will meet the ends of justice (15). In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directingg the Opposite Party No.2 to refund Rs.40,00,000/- with interest@ 12% p.a., from 30.06.2015 till the date of payment; That further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, besides costs of Rs.20,000/- and on making such payment Opposite Party No.2 is entitled to take back the entire machinery from Pwl, and he should facilitate in handing over of such material to Opposite Party No.2. The complaint against Opposite Party No.1 is dismissed without costs.
Time for compliance one month. In case of failure to pay Rs.40,00,000/- as stipulated, the rate of interest will be increased to 14% p.a. Dictated to the steno; transcribed and typed by her; corrected and pronounced by us in the open court on this 22nd day of November 2022.