The petitioner’s complaint is as follows: The respondent had agreed to supply moulds of artificial legs to complainant. As per that the complainant made an advance of Rs.1,25,000/- to the respondent on two occasions to supply 10 moulds (5 sets). The respondent assured to deliver the moulds before 15.11.06. But the respondent did not supply the moulds and the complainant was forced to send a lawyer notice. The respondent sent reply stating untrue facts. The act of the respondent is an unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

 

            2. The counter of the respondent is as follows: The petitioner is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner knows very well that the respondent is not the manufacturer of the moulds and the respondent only suggested a name of the manufacturing company in Delhi viz. R.B. Engineering. The respondent ordered the moulds as per the direction of the petitioner. The said company also sent sample and accepted by the complainant. The petitioner paid only Rs.1,15,000/- instead of Rs.1,80,000/-, the actual amount. The petitioner did not remit the balance amount. He was not ready to take delivery of the moulds from Delhi. The petitioner had given a complaint against this respondent in Chalakudy Police Station and the police directed to settle the matter by giving the balance amount. The petitioner then agreed and later refused to pay and take the products. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and hence dismiss the complaint. 

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

 

(1)   Is there any deficiency in service?

(2)   Reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 only.

 

            5. Point No.1: The definite case of complainant is that he had been paid Rs.1,15,000/- to the respondent for supply of artificial legs. In the complaint he has stated that the respondent had agreed to supply 10 moulds of artificial legs to the complainant and the complainant had paid Rs.90,000/- on 2.1.06 and Rs.25,000/- on 10.2.06. But the products were not supplied till day. So this complaint has filed. He has produced documents and marked Exts. P1 to P4. The only contention of the respondent is that he is not the manufacturer and the moulds were ready and the complainant refused to take delivery of the same. According to the respondent R.B. Engineering Delhi is the manufacturer and they were ready to supply but the complainant did not pay the total cost and was not ready to take delivery of the products after the balance payment. According to the respondent there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. Ext. P1 is a letter written by the respondent to the complainant. In this letter the respondent agreed that he had undertaken to supply the moulds but due to some obstacles he could not deliver. This is a clear admission on the part of respondent and is a best evidence. He also assured that he will supply the moulds on or before 15.11.06. So far no moulds were supplied. So on 15.1.07the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice and the reply was sent by the respondent stating a different version from Ext. P1 letter. In Ext. P4 reply notice and in the version also the respondent tried to shift the burden of responsibility to another one viz. R.B. Engineering Delhi. According to the respondent, he is not the manufacturer and he had entrusted the amount and he has no responsibility. He also stated that the moulds were ready for delivery and the complainant failed to take the products by paying the balance amount. He also made a contention that a settlement arrangement was done in the Chalakudy Police Station. But there is no evidence to prove it. Even the date of petition to the police is not mentioned. Whether it was before or after Ext. P1 is unaware. So no other way except to take into consideration of Ext. P1 letter. The delivery of the products is not disputed by respondent. So far no delivery is taken place and an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- has received by the respondent. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the alleged R.B. Engineering. The entire transaction was between the complainant and respondent. So the respondent is answerable to the complainant. There is serious service deficiency on the part of respondent. This point is found against the respondent.

 

            6. Point No.2: According to the complainant, he is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- with 12% interest. There is no other option except allowing refund of the amount paid. Complainant is entitled to refund of the amount with 12% interest from the date of payment and 6% till realisation. Hence we are not ordering compensation.

 

            7. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifteen thousand only) to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of payment and 6% interest from today till realisation. Respondent is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs to the complainant. Comply the order within one month.

 

 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 22nd day of December 2008.