DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 9th day of June, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 15/09/2020
CC/109/2020
M/s.APJ Refineries Pvt.Ltd.,
8/1209 NIDA, Kanjikode,
Palakkad – 678 623
Rep.by Managing Director - Complainant
(By Adv. Vinod K. Kayanat)
Vs
Heat Transfer Equipments Pvt. Ltd.
SF No.186/4,5,6 Site No.9A
Opp. Indoshell Plant No.6,
SIDCO (PO), Coimbatore – 641 021 - Opposite party
(OP by Adv. C. Nandakumaran)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Abridged pleadings are to the effect that the complainant is a Company. The Company and its activities, in the facts and circumstances of the case is not barred from filing this complaint and is therefore a complainant as contemplated under the Act. They ordered a component of machinery installed in their premises for carrying out the work of the complainant. They had also paid Rs. 1,23,000/- being 50% of the cost of the component. But the O.P. failed to deliver the product. Hence the complainant had to suffer huge losses. Complainant had to purchase the said component from another vendor, incurring additional expense. Complaint is filed seeking return of the advance amount paid to the O.P. and for incidental and ancillary reliefs.
- O.P. filed version stating that the O.P. was always ready and willing to comply with their part of the contract, but it was due to the complainant changing their specifications that the delay occurred. This O.P. had already incurred expenses for manufacturing the said component. The complainant has not suffered losses as pleaded.
- To adjudicate the dispute, following issues are to be answered:
- Whether the O.P. failed to deliver the component in a time bound manner?
- If there is delay, whether the delay is attributable to the complainant?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
-
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A6.
(ii) O.P. filed P/A without any documents. Since the O.P. failed to appear for cross examination, evidence was closed with liberty to advert to any adverse inference as and when warranted.
Issue No. 1
5. Crux of the case of complainant is that the O.P., even after receiving 50% of the cost of the component in advance failed to deliver the same. O.P. contested the case of the complainant stating that they were ready and willing to provide the component, but it was due to the conduct of the complainant themselves, wherein they changed the design of the product they wanted, that led to delay in supply.
6. Thus it can be seen that the case of the complainant that there is delay stands proved as the O.P. has admitted that there is delay, albeit owing to reasons allegedly attributable to the complainant themselves.
Issue No. 2
7. The next question that needs to be addressed is to whom the delay is attributable. It is the case of the O.P. that the complainant changed the design/specifications after having once placed the order. They further contented that they had carried out work for approximately Rs. 1,80,000/-.
8. But the O.P. has not adduced any evidence, whether documentary or oral, to prove their case. Thus the pleadings of the O.P. stands unproved. It is quite safe to advert to the presumption that the pleadings of the O.P. lack any merits.
9. Resultantly we hold that the delay occurred is attributable to the O.P. and not to the complainant.
Issue Nos. 3 & 4
10. Apropos the finding in Issue nos. 1 & 2, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
11. Compensation claimed by the complainant includes the alleged loss of revenue the complainant alleges they failed to generate as the machinery failed to operate owing to non-supply of component part. But the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove this claim. Hence the claim is disallowed.
But the complainant is entitled to receive the advance amount paid along with interest and compensation and cost.
Issue No. 5
13. Consequently we allow the complainant on the following terms:
1. Complainant is entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- together with interest at the rate of 10% from 1/10/2019 till date from the date of repayment.
2. The complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 30,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
3. The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs. 25,000/-
4. The O.P. shall comply with the above order within 45 days from receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to receive solatium at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month or part thereof from the date of this Order till the date of final payment of the amounts stated above.
Pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of June, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of proposal dated 13/9/2019
Ext.A2 – Copy of purchase order dated 18/9/2019
Ext.A3 - Screenshot of NEFT transfer acknowledgment for Rs.50,000/-
Ext.A4 – Printout of NEFT transfer acknowledgment for Rs.73,000/-
Ext.A5 – Copy of revised quotation dated 2/1/2020
Ext.A6 – Copy of communication dated 9/1/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
