BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER

       DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

COMPLAINT NO.65/2016
 

Date: 05^th day of November, 2016

   P r e  s e n t: 

01) Smt.Sharada.K.                                                    President…

     B.A.LL.B. (Spl) 

02) Smt. Sumangala.C.Hadli.                         Lady   Member…

                            B.A (Music)

03) Shri.Shravanakumar.D.Kadi                               Member…

                        M.Com.LL.B.  (Spl)

                V/s

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT. SUMANGALA.C.HADLI, MEMBER

The complainant has filed this Complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) claiming the cost of machine of Rs.4,10,000/-, damages by way of loss of buinsess be awarded to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, mental agony of Rs.50,000/-, cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- and any other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

02.    The brief fact of the case are as follows:

The complainant has running a business of excavation through heavy bulldozer for carrying out excavation work on rental basis. The complainant had placed on order before the OP for supply of 2272-6106D TRACK SHOE ASSLY DCF Make-2 Nos., 10 MM worth of Rs.4,10,000/-. The complainant get an advance of RS.1,25,000/- was made by cheque of Syndicate Bank for supply of said product. The Invoice for the TRACK SHOE ASSY for Rs.4,10,000/- is annexed herewith and signed by the OP. The Order was specifically placed for TRACK SHOE ASSY of DCF Make. The same product was delivered to the complainant stated that after delivery, it came to notice of the complainant that the OP has supplied sub-standard product of 2272-6106D TRACK SHOE ASSLY of DOZCO make, whereas the order had been placed for DCF make. 

03.    The complainant further stated that he had taken an order of excavation work from Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Limited, Hyderabad at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per hour. For the doing the work for 10 hours per day, Because of supply of substandard product the work of the complainant was stopped and caused loss of Rs.15,000/- per day amounting into Rs.1,50,000/-. As soon as the complainant received substandard part, the complainant had informed on mobile regarding the supply of product other than the product of which the order is placed, but there was no response from the OP. Hence, the complainant has filed the present Complaint claiming the cost of machine of Rs.4,10,000/-, damages by way of loss of buinsess be awarded to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, mental agony of Rs.50,000/-, cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- and any other reliefs deemed fit under the circumstances of the case.

04.    After receipt of notice, OP has not appeared before this Forum though sufficient time was given to the OP and placed Ex-parte.  

05.    The complainant tendered affidavit evidence and placed following documents are as follows:                         

06.    After considering the material placed on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration are:

07.    After considering the evidence tendered by the complainant and on careful consideration of the points urged during the course of arguments, our findings for the above points are as follows:

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

R E A S O N S

 08. POINT NO.1:  The complainant has running a business of excavation through heavy bulldozer for carrying out excavation work on rental basis. The complainant had placed on order before the OP for supply of 2272-6106D TRACK SHOE ASSLY DCF Make-2 Nos., 10 MM worth of Rs.4,10,000/-. The OP had received order on 22.01.2016 with the condition to supply the said product within one week to ten days. The complainant made an advance of Rs.1,25,000/- through cheque of Syndicate Bank The Invoice of the Tract SHOE ASSLY for Rs.4,10,000/- is produced.

09.         The Order was specifically placed for TRACK SHOE ASSLY of DCF make after delivery, the complainant came to know that the OP had supplied substandard product of 2272-6106D TRACK SHOE ASSLY of DOZCO make whereas the order was placed for DCF make.  

10.         The complainant has produced legal notice to the OP. Even after that OP has not responded to the said notice, nor appeared before this Forum. Hence, for the above reasons and documents produced by the complainant, the OP has failed to supply the said product which was ordered by the complainant. Hence, the complainant has proved his deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

  11.  POINT NO.2: To substantiate this point, complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, the complainant has entitled to get Rs.4,10,000/- towards the cost of substandard product delivered by OP to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages by way of loss of business. The complainant is also entitle to get an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of litigation. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the Partly affirmative.

  12.  POINT NO.3:  In view of our findings recorded to Point No.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following:

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partly allowed.

2. The OP shall have to refund the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- (Rupees four lakh ten thousand) towards the substandard product delivered by the OP to the complainant.

3. The OP shall have to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards damages by way of loss of business.
4. The OP shall have to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards mental agony, Rs. and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) towards the cost of proceeding.
5. The OP has directed to comply this order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.4,10,000/- carries interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.
6. Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 05^th day of November, 2016)