Haryana

StateCommission

A/871/2014

Shiv Machinery & Motor Binding Store - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dalbir Singh - Opp.Party(s)

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :       871 of 2014

Date of Institution:       05.09.2014

Date of Decision :        06.01.2017

 

 

Shiv Machinery & Motor Binding Store, Main Bus Stand, Jui Khurd, through its Proprietor Shishpal Singh.

                                      Appellant-Opposite Party No.1

Versus

 

1.      Dalbir Singh son of Sh. Jug Lal, resident of Village Jui,Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

Respondent-Complainant

2.      Larsen & Turbo Limited, L & T House Ballard Estate, Mumbai.

Respondent-Opposite Party No.2

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member                                                                                                                                         

Present:              Shri Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the appellant

                             Shri Dalbir Singh, respondent No.1-complainant in person

                             None for the respondent No.2

 

 

O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

          By filing this appeal, Shiv Machinery & Motor Binding Store-opposite party No.1 (appellant herein) has challenged the order dated May 05^th, 2014 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhiwani (for short ‘District Forum’) whereby complaint filed by Dalbir Singh–complainant was allowed.  For facilitation, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:-

          “1.     To replace the starter with new one with new guarantee or to refund Rs.13,770/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint, till its final realization.

          2.      To refund Rs.5675/- (charged in excess for the motor) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till its final realization.

          3.      To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.”

 

2.      Against the said order, appellant filed appeal No.871 of 2014 before this Commission.  In the said appeal, complainant did not appear inspite of having received the notice.  He was proceeded exparte.  The appeal was accepted setting aside the relief claimed by the District Forum to refund Rs.5675/-, that is, the amount charged in excess by the appellant from the complainant.  So far as replacement of motor starter with new one or to refund Rs.13,770/- alongwith interest , the appeal was dismissed.

3.      Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, Dalbir Singh-complainant filed Revision Petition No.2357 of 2015 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.  The revision petition was accepted vide order dated August 08^th, 2016 and the case was remitted for deciding the appeal afresh after hearing the parties on merits.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant and Dalbir Singh-complainant in person have been heard. 

5.      At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has urged that appellant does not challenge the order of the District Forum whereby it directed to replace the motor starter or to pay amount Rs.13,770/- alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

6.      It has been also urged by learned counsel for the appellant at bar that the amount of Rs.13,770/- alongwith interest accrued thereon shall be paid to the complainant within one month from today.   So far as directing the appellant to pay Rs.5675/- to the complainant is concerned, it has been urged that in the bill dated June 13^th, 2010, the price of the submersible motor of 30 HP, 8STJ-V8 Lubi was mentioned Rs.51,435/-.  The said motor was replaced on June 15^th, 2010 with a motor of different model, that is, 8 Stage, V-8, SL-BF-80 S.N. -21100115, and the difference of amount, that is, 51,435-45,760=5675 was to be adjusted in the final bill.  The complainant has to pay Rs.42,830/- to the appellant and for that, the appellant has filed a civil suit at Civil Courts, Bhiwani for the recovery of the said amount.

7.      The complainant has not paid the balance amount outstanding against him, that is, Rs.42,830/- and the appellant has filed civil suit at Civil Courts, Bhiwani for the recovery of the said amount.  From it, is not in dispute that the balance amount of Rs.5675/- is to be paid by the appellant to the complainant but case of the appellant is that the complainant has to pay him Rs.42,830/- for which the recovery suit is pending at Bhiwani.  In case the civil suit is decreed, the said amount of Rs.5675/- shall be deducted.  The plea is tenable.  This being so, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the appellant shall pay Rs.13,770/- alongwith interest as awarded by the District Forum to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order and for the remaining amount of Rs.5675/-, the appeal is accepted to the effect that in case the suit filed by the appellant is decreed, amount  of Rs.5675/- shall be deducted.  

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.10,730/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.    

 

 

Announced 06.01.2017

(Urvashi Agnihotri) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK