Karnataka

StateCommission

A/797/2018

M/s Sri Lakshmi Traders - Complainant(s)

Versus

Anjanappa - Opp.Party(s)

A.N.Krishna

16 Oct 2023

ORDER

Date of Filing :25.05.2018

Date of Disposal :16.10.2023

 

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

 

DATED:16.10.2023

 

PRESENT

 

HON’BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

                                                    Mr K BSANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

 

 

APPEAL No.797/2018

 

 

M/s Sri Lakshmi Traders

Lakshmi Grinder Dealer

No.49/1, SJP Road

Bengaluru-560 002

Reptd. by its Manager

And Authorized Signatory

Sri P Ramakrishna                                                               Appellant

(By Mr A.N.Krishna, Advocate)

 

     -Versus-

1. SriAnjanappa

    Aged about 43 years

    S/o Sri Narasimhappa

    Polampalli Village

    Varalakonda Post

    Peresandra Road

    Gudibande Taluk

    Chikkaballapur District-561 209

    (By Mr H V Narayanappa, Advocate)

 

2. The Branch Manager

    Canara Bank Branch

    Beechaganahalli

    Gudibande Taluk

    Chikkaballapur District-561 209                               Respondents

 

:ORDER:

 

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

 

1.       This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 by the OP1, aggrieved by the Order dated 26.04.2018 passed in Consumer Complaint No.37/2017 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum).

2.       Heard the Learned Counsel for Appellant and R1.  No steps has been taken by the Appellant against R2 hence, arguments of R2 is taken as heard.

3.       Perused the Impugned Order and Grounds of Appeal.

4.       It is the case of the Complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.5 Lakhs from OP2 Canara Bank for purchase of a Machine for processing of Toor Dhal, construction of shed, electrical works & other incidental expenses from OP1 - Sri Lakshmi Traders.   The main allegation of the Complainant that after receipt of payment of Rs.2,58,882/- through NEFT from OP2, OP1 installed the said machine after lapse of 5 months in the constructed area built by him and from the date of installation, Toor Dhal Machine was not working properly and reported the same to the OP1, but OP1 did not set right the problem and hence, he underwent mental agony because of defective machine supplied by OP1. 

5.       OP1 admitted the receipt of payment of Rs.2,58,882/- made by the Complainant towards cost of Toor Dhal Machine, as per Invoice No.355 and 356 dated 25.08.2016 and contended that the Complainant was unable to keep the required items of grains and stocks so as to run the machine in proper manner and there are 04 stages of processing of grains, from 1^st to 4^th stage, which requires minimum 400 Kgs of grains/stocks to run the machinery, but the Complainant without keeping the required quantity of grain started to run the Machine, which is not in accordance with the manner of processing and denied the allegation of the Complainant.

6.       The stand taken by OP2 is that based on the Project Report and the Quotation of OP-1 submitted by the Complainant, on 03.06.2016 sanctioned a Loan of Rs.2,58,882/- to the Complainant for purchase of Toor Dhal Machine and disbursed the said amount through NEFT to OP1 and he is no way concerned to the defect of the Machinery supplied by OP1

7.       The District Forum recorded its Findings in its Order that the Cause of Action arose, when the matter has not been settled before the Superintendant of Police, Kolar and the dispute raised by the Complainant has been entertained as per Section 2(1) (d) of CP Act 1986.  Further, the Grounds urged by the Appellant with regard to question of territorial jurisdiction are not sustainable.

          Further, the observation of the District Forum in Para 15 of its Order that, the documents submitted by the Complainant are the Mahazar of the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Gudibande dated 05.08.2017, Mahazar of Villagers dated 28.07.2017 which all clearly reveals that Toor Dhal Machine is not working properly and the Certificate dated 15.01.2018 issued by one Mr Shaik Mahaboob, Bismillah Engineering Works, Gudibande clearly certified that the Toor Dhal Machine supplied by OP1 is defective one.

8.       Thus, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant purchased a Toor Dhal Machine from OP1 Sri Lakshmi Traders by availing a Bank Loan of Rs.2,58,882/- from OP2’s Bank and the amount payable by the Complainant was paid through NEFT by OP2, as per Invoice Nos.355 and 356 dated 25.08.2016.  The Toor Dhal Machine supplied by OP1 is defective one was established by the Complainant with the support of documents produced before the District Forum. Having referred to these aspects, we do not find any irregularity or infirmities in the Impugned Order that the Complainant is entitled for reimbursement of Rs.2,58,882/- paid by him towards the  purchase cost of the Toor Dhal Machine exclusively from OP1, with interest at the rate of 9 % p.a from 03.02.2017, Litigation Cost of Rs.5,000/- & compensation of Rs.5,000/- from the date of complaint, till the compliance  of the order and directed the Complainant to hand over the defective Toor Dhal Machine to OP1 as is in its existing condition.. Hence, in our considered opinion, the Impugned Order needs to be confirmed as it is.  In result, the Appeal is Dismissed, with no order as to costs.

9.       The Statutory Deposit in this Appeal is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for further needful.

10.     Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

 

 

Lady Member                      Judicial Member                President

*s