COMPLAINT FILED: 28.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 30th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1902/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT BELTRONICS,No.59, 6th Main,Appurao Road,Chamarajapet,Bangalore – 560 018.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. ABB Limited.,AP-MB (LV Motors Division)Plot No.5 & 6, II Phase,Peenya,Bangalore – 560 058.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a sum of Rs.35,606/- with interest and compensation of Rs.2,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant supplied Electronic meters to the OP vide invoice No.2371 dated 25.03.2008 worth of Rs.35,606/-. After the delivery and purchase of the said goods OP failed to make payment in time. On repeated insistence OP came up with a contention that one vibration meter made of ABB specification is not supplied. Though complainant supplied the said material as per the catalogue, OP is not making payment in time. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs for recovery of the amount in due with interest and for compensation.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notice was sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that as per the demand and order placed by the OP he submitted the catalogue and the quotation. OP accepted the quotation for supply of Electronic meters and placed the purchase order on 18.03.2008. In pursuance of the said purchase order complainant supplied the goods under the invoice No.2371 dated 25.03.2008. The property is worth of Rs.35,606/-. The documents to that effect including the tax invoice are produced.<br /> <br /> 5. Now it is the grievance of the complainant though OP took delivery of the said goods in the month of March 2008, so for so good they have not paid the amount in due. On repeated insistence OP came up with a defence that one vibration meter supplied is not of ABB specification. But according to the quotation whatever the meter that is sought is supplied by the complainant. The non payment of the bill amount in due by the OP according to complainant amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 6. It is further contended by the complainant that for no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint. On the plain reading of the complainant the allegations made therein in our view didn’t spell out a case of hiring of service as contemplated under C.P Act and suffering from deficiency. Rather it discloses a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance in due on the basis of transactions. Under such circumstances we find complainant didn’t fall within the ambit of section.2 (1) (c) and (e) of the C.P Act. Civil suit was the proper remedy to recover the amount in due if so advised.<br /> <br /> 7. Merely because OP has not appeared that does not mean what ever the complainant has stated is to be taken as gospel truth. The burden lies on the complainant to prove the material fact with regard to availment of services and deficiency in service. But here in our view the whole of the transactions doesn’t amounts to ‘consumer’ dispute. But it is a simple case of recovery of the amount in due in pursuance of the sale transactions. <br /> <br /> 8. Under such circumstances we find the present complaint is not maintainable. It is devoid of merits. As already observed by us if the complainant is so advised remedy is still open for him to file a regular civil suit and recover the amount in due. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Keeping open the liberty to the complainant to file civil suit if so advised. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 30th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />