CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                             Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.153/11

 

                                                   Tuesday the 27^th day of September, 2011

 

Petitioner                                                          : T.K. Biju,

                                                                           Kuzhiyil House,

                                                                           Pala PO, Kottayam.

                                                                           (Jobin Mathew)

                                                                      Vs.

Opposite party                                                 : C.P. Lakshmanan,

                                                                         Proprietor,

                                                                         M/s. Sree Abhirami Engineering,

                                                                         1190, Avinashi Road,

                                                                           Pappanickenpalayam,

                                                                           Opp.Sakthi Hardwares,

                                                                           Coimbatore-37.

             

 

 

 

             Case of the petitioner, filed on 16/06/11, is as follows:-

 

            Petitioner is conducting a small bakery in his house, by way of self employment and the income from the said business is the used for the livelihood of the petitioner. During January 2010 petitioner for the expansion of the business placed an order before the opposite party for the following machines.

1) Auto kneader 40kg

2) Murukku Machine 2kg

      3) litre grinder gear box type

     4) Tappioca cutting machine

     5) packing machine including scale 30kg.

 

For the purchase of the above mentioned machine petitioner had taken a loan and had paid the amount by way of demand draft favouring the opposite party on 28/9/2010 and the opposite party encashed the D.D. Opposite party promised and assured the petitioner that they will deliver the machines immediately after receipt of the DD but after the receipt of the same opposite party made delay in delivering the machine. Petitioner had forced to pay huge amount as interest for the bank loan availed for purchase of machines. It is proved that machines supplied by opposite party were inferior quality and the components of the machines were cheep local produce. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. So, he prays for an order directing the opposite party to supply quality machines or in alternate petitioner claims refund of Rs.2,44,125/- with 18% interest from the date of payment till realisation. Petitioner claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation, for the mental agony and another 50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service.

      Notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party has not entered appearance and was set expartee.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidience in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext.A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner.

            Case of the petitioner is that opposite party supplied inferior quality machines to the petitioner. With regard to the purchase of the machine petitioner produce A1 quotation. According to the petitioner machines supplied by the opposite party as per Ext.A1 quotation is of inferior quality. Petitioner issued a lawyer’s notice to the opposite party. Copy of the notice produced is marked as Ext.A2. Ext.A3 is the postal receipt proving issuance of Ext.A2 notice. Since opposite was expartee. We are constrained to rely on the sworn proof affidavit filed by the petitioner. Act of the opposite party in supplying inferior quality machines amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.

            In the result opposite party is ordered to supply quality machines, to the satisfaction of the petitioner, if the opposite party has not complied with the order within one month petitioner is entitled for refund of Rs. 2,44,125/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase till realisation. On refund of the amount opposite party can take back the equipments from the premises of the petitioner. Without saying what had happened caused on inconvenience and hardships to the petitioner. So opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the petitioner. Opposite party is directed to pay petitioner Rs. 2000/- as litigation cost.

            Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.

Documents of the petitioner

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of.September, 2011.

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-    

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-                

Ext.A1-Quotation dtd 16/1/10

Ext.A2-Lawyer’s notice dtd 16/3/11

Ext.A3-Postal receipts

By Order,