SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. .This complaint for realization of Rs.35,500/-, compensation and costs. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follow: The complainant has applied for a PMRY loan for starting a printing press at Bhoothakulam. After obtaining approval from the District Industries Officer, Kollam he approached the 2nd opp.party who sanctioned a loan of Rs.94,700/- . Necessary project report were also submitted The complainant was to submit the lowest quotation for the purchase of the machinery. The first opp.party submitted a quotation on 29.4.99 for supplying the machinery. The quotation of the first opp.party was accepted by the complainant . The 2nd opp.party has issued a demand draft dated 19.5.1999 for Rs.14,400/- to the first opp.party as initial payment . Thereafter the sum of Rs.85,284/- was also issued by way of demand draft to the first opp.party by the 2nd opp.party. The first opp.party was required to supply the machinery to the complain ant immediately after receipt of advance payment. However the first opp.party failed to supply the machinery . The first opp.party supplied printing machine along with its motor and a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on 16.9.99. Out of Rs.5,000/- given by the first opp.party a sum of Rs.1,023/- was paid for purchasing the roller Rs. 2,000/- towards the installation charges and Rs.1,000/- towards loading and unloading charges and Rs.1,000/- towards transportation of the machinery. When the printing machine and the motor were installed it was found that the motor was faulty. Thereafter on repeated requests the first opp.party’s mechanics repaired the same. The complainant thereafter requested the 1st opp.party to supply the remaining machine, but the 1st op0p.party did not take any steps to supply the remaining machinery. . On 31.12.99 the 1st opp.party had sent a registered letter to the complainant stating that the fist opp.party has received the acceptance letter on22.12.99. Though the erection of the printing machine was carried out on 16.9.99 the machine was not working properly due to the faulty motor and accessories. The first opp.party has assured the complainant that he will take up all necessary works to make the machine fully operational before supplying the remaining machiner that is printing types and sundries. As per the information from the first opp.party reported to the sales depot on 4.1.2000 to take delivery of the remaining g items. But when the complainant went there for taking delivery it was informed that the item was presently out of stock. It was also a false mention letter dated 31.12.99 that the complainant has taken a loan of Rs.8723/- but the complainant has not taken any such loan.. On 17.1.2000 the first opp.party has sent a letter and on the basis of that the complainant again went to the first opp.party depot on 25.1.2000 to take delivery of the remaining machineries. But on that day also the machinery were not supplied. Thereafter on several occasions the complainant approached the opp.party for the supply of remaining machinery. The Block Industrial Development Officer visited the site of the complainant’s printing press and on his intervention the first opp.party again agreed to supply the items but did not supply the same. On 11.1.2001 the Taluk Industrial Officer and the complainant visited the 1st opp.party’s depot for taking delivery of the remaining machinery. But on that day also the machinery were not supplied. The 2nd opp.party was approached by the complainant who has also intervention for the supply of the remaining machinery but it was also of no avail. Due to the persistent enquiry from the complainant and District Industries Officer and the bank the first opp.party agreed to supply the remaining machinery to the complainant or to repay the amount towards the cost of the remaining machinery on or before 31.12.2003. But this time also the first opp.party cheated the complainant. The 2nd opp.party instructed the complainant to repay the loan amount which had fallen in arrears. Thereafter due to the insistence of the 2nd opp.party for repayment the complainant purchased from the local market there the remaining accessories with a view to repay the loan amount. For this purpose he has availed a loan of Rs.40,000/- from the money lenders incurring huge interest. Thereafter the complainant has approached the first opp.party and insisted for the supply of remaining machinery in the presence of one Santhosh Kumar, Umesh G.B., and V., Jayaprakash and in their presence the first opp.party agreed to supply the remaining machinery or to pay back the amount on or before 31.12.2003. That was also turned futile. Thereupon the complainant issued an Advocate notice on 9.6.2004 for which the first opp.party has sent a reply alleging that the complainant was reluctant to take delivery of the machinery and also raised a false contention that the complainant is not entitled to claim the machinery after3 years. The contention of the opp.party is not legally sustainable. Due to the indifferent attitude of the 1st opp.party the complainant suffered mental tension and agony. The act of the first opp.party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint. The first opp.party filed a version contending, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer as he has purchased the machinery for commercial purpose, The complainant has availed a loan from the 2nd opp.party for starting printing press . For producing before the bank authorities the complainant requested a quotation from this opp.party and as per his repeated requests on 29.4.1999 this opp.party has given a quotation for a total invoice price of Rs.99,850/-. On 20.9.99 the complainant approached this opp.party and borrowed a sum of Rs.5000/- on the assurance that the amount will be adjusted in the invoice price. On 19.5.99 the complainant has placed order for the supply of machineries by remitting an advance amount of Rs.14,000/- . The opp.party placed the order to the manufacturer of the machinery and it was kept ready. After a lapse of 4 months the complainant paid the balance amount towards the price of the machineries on 8.9.99. On 16.9.99 this opp.party sent these machineries through their authorized mechanics and the same were erected in the complainant’s premises He has also taken impression of the printing machines to convince that the printing machinery is performing well and the impression obtained was handed over to the complainant who has expressed his satisfaction in the impression.. The complainant has not turned up to take the delivery of sundry items in spite of several requests. On 31.12.99 the opp.party sent a registered letter to the complainant requiring to take the printing types and sundries from his premises without any delay. The amount received as loan was also required to be returned. This notice was acknowledged by the complainant but did not send any reply. On 17.1.2000 this opp.party again sent another letter directing the complainant to take the printing types and sundry items. The complainant has not turned up. Thereafter the opp.party personally met the complainant and requested to take the delivery of the above items. The complainant thereupon revealed that he did not want the sundry items but only cash towards its value.. He has further stated that he wanted to purchase the above items from the second had market. After some days the complainant suppressing these facts issued an advocate notice. For that this opp.party sent a reply notice on 20.2.2000 stating that the printing types are ready and to take deliver of the same. Inspite of this reply notice the complainant was not ready and willing to take delivery of the items. As per the quotation the rates quoted are at Ex-Quilon Hence it is the duty of the complainant to take delivery from this opp.party’s office. Till recently items were kept ready for delivery at the opp.party’s office at Chinnakkada. It is learnt subsequently that though the complainant has been running his printing press, he committed willful default in the repayment of loan and hence the 2nd opp.party has initiated legal steps for the recovery of the amount. The complainant misled the bank and the Bank Authorities for his failure to repay the loan amount under the pretext that this unit has not been functioning. This opp.party is in possession of documentary evidence to show that the complainant has been running his printing press with the machineries supplied by this opp.party. It is also equally false to say that the bank authorities and the Block Development officer contacted this opp.party for the supply of the alleged machineries . There is no fiduciary relationship between this opp.party and the Banker of the complainant. It is only an afterthought of the complainant to prove that the opp.party has been offering to supply of machineries. This opp.party had also supplied the Lever Cutting machine. Perforating machine and Sundries. Those items were duly delivered and were acknowledged by the complainant. The remaining items are only the printing types. The value of the unsupplied articles how so ever is negligible and there was nothing to prevent the complainant from starting the business in time. There is no deficiency in s service or unfair trade practice on the party of this opp.party. Complainant’s claim now is barred by limitation. The complainant is now alleging to continuing correspondence and letters between him and this opp.party. There was no communication or correspondence from the complainant after his first lawyer notice on 20.2.2000. After that there was no correspondence or contact as alleged in the complaint on 9.1.2001 and 22.7.2002 or thereafter. There is no cause of action for the complaint and this opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. POINTS; The contention of the 1st opp.party is that this complaint is barred by limitation. It is argued that a major portion of the machinery were supplied to the complainant as per Ext.P2 quotation and printing types and sundries alone remained to be supplied and that the complainant expressed satisfaction after installation of machinery and trial run of the press. The case of complainant is that after installation of machinery and there was inordinate ate delay in supplying the printing types and sundries and so he purchased the same from elsewhere and now he does not require them and so the price of those items may be given to him. Ext.P.12 is an Advocate notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opp.party dated22.1.2000 demanding supply of the remaining machineries. Ext. D8 is the reply issued by 1st opp.party to Ext.P12 informing the complainant that the printing types and sundry items are ready and requiring the complainant to take delivery of the same immediately. As per Ext.D4 dated 31.12.99 and Ext. D5 dated 17.1.2000 also the1st opp.party has required the complainant to take delivery of the printing types and sundries. Though the complainant would submit that he had gone to the shop of opp.party 1 to take delivery of the remaining items the same were not supplied there is no evidence, worth believable, in this regard. It is true that PW.1 has examined PWs 2 and 3 to prove this aspect whose evidence cannot be safely relied on PW.2 has stated that he is giving evidence not in his official capacity and that he does not know about the communication send by opp.party 1. PW.3 does not know whether PW.1 had any printing press or not. According to PW.3 he heard opp.party 1 saying in July 2002 that he would supply the articles on 31.12.2003 [cross page 3]. But his version in chief examination is that when he went with the complainant to the 1st opp.party’s godown for the 3rd time the opp.party said that he will pay the amount to the bank . Even the complainant has no such case as PW.3 has no consistent version and it is obvious that he is a hired witness. Ext.P12 was issued on 22.1.2000 and Ext. D8 reply was issued on 20.2.2000, Ext, P13 was issued on 9.6.04. If the opp.party 1 failed to deliver the articles to him in pursuant to Ext. D8, the complainant could have demanded those machineries immediately after the failure to deliver the same by way of a notice or file complaint. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for not doing so. As argued by the opp.party 1 the cause of action arose on the date of issuance of Ext.D8 expressing readiness and willingness to deliver the remaining machineries and the complaint ought to have been filed within 2 years from the date of receipt of Ext.D8. Issuance of Ext.P13 on 9.6.04 will not save the period of limitation as there was no communication between PW.1 and Opp.party 1 during this period. The oral promises alleged have been readily denied by the 1st opp.party and there is no corroborative materials to support the case of oral promises. As argued by opp.party the cause of action for this complaint arose on the issuance of Ext.P12 Advocate notice and after Ext. D8 reply and the complaint filed after the expiry of 2 years of Ext.D8 is hit by Sec. 24A of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The learned counsel for the 1st opp.party in support of his contention would rely on the decision reported in 2008 [2] CPR 257 [N.C.] following the decision of Apex Court reported in 2000 [1] SCC.586 wherein it was held that once a cause of action arose for filing complaint making of any subsequent representation could not extend period of limitation issuance of Ext.P13 as pointed out earlier will not save period of limitation. So we hold that the complaint barred by limitation. Point found accordingly. Point No.2 As a matter of fact the complainant has no complaints about the machineries supplied by the opp.party 1 and he [PW.1} has expressed satisfaction about the performance of the machinery. Though an allegation was raised regarding some fault of the motor. PW.1 admitted that the same was repaired by opp.party 1. PW.1 was satisfied with the repair is obvious from not seeking replacement of the motor . Any way no expert opinion was adduced regarding this aspect. In the complaint also there is no prayer for refund of the price of the defective motor or replacement of the same what is sought is refund of the value of the machinery not supplied which, as argued by opp.party 1, is not a consumer dispute. It is well settled that a claim for money alone without allegation of deficiency in service is not a consumer dispute. Now it is contended by the 1st opp.party that even if the complainant has not received the entire machinery as per Ext.P2 quotation it is only a breach of agreement for which the remedy lies elsewhere and in support of his contention he has relied on the decision reported in 2002 [2] CPR 36. Point 3: As pointed out earlier this complaint if filed to get the price of the machineries alleged to have been not supplied. The complainant has failed to establish that the machineries installed in his press by opp.party 1 has any defect. It has also come in evidence that opp.party.1 was always ready and willing to supply the printing types and sundries which are the remaining items agreed to be supplied and the complainant did not turn up to take delivery of the same Therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this Forum . From the evidence now before us we are of the view that the complainant failed to establish that there is any deficiency in service on the part of 1st opp.party. Point found accordingly. In the result, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 31st day of October, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – D.N. Sureshkumar PW.2. – Umesh PW.3. – P. Sunil List of documents for the complainant P1. – Loan sanction letter P2. – Quotation P3. – Copy of D.D. dated 19.5.99 P4. – Quotation accepted record P5. – Receipt issued by the 1st opp.party to the complainant P6. – Letter issued by S.S. Printers P7. – Letter given to the 2nd opp.party P8. – Letter dated 12.11.99 P9. – Letter dated 7.1.2000 P10. – Letter issued to the 1st opp.party by the 2nd opp.party. P11. – Letter dated 11.1.2001 P12. – Notice issued by the bank dated 22.1.2000 P13. – Advocate notice List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – P.M. Reghu DW.2. – Ramachandran List of documents for the opp.parties D1.- Receipt forRs.5000/- D2. – Receipt D3. – Letter sent by complainant to the Machine Trade, Kollam D4. – Letter to the complainant dated 31.12.1999 with postal receipt D5. – Letter to the complainant dated 17.1.2000 D6. – Postal acknowledgement D7. – Postal acknowledgement dated 1.1.2009 D8. – Reply notice for advocate notice D9.- Reply for Advocate notice dt. 2.8.04 D10. – Postal acknowledgement | 
