Date of filing : 31-07-2006 Date of order : 08-04-2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.87/06 Dated this, the 8th day of April 2009 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.SHYMALADEVI : MEMBER P.Abdul Rahman, S/o.Muhammadkunhi, R/at Muskan view, Periya Bazar, } Complainant Periya Village, Kasaragod.Dt. 1. Rakesh.P, B.Tech, Chief Executive, Periyar Building Products, } Opposite parties P.B.No.3, Kovvappady.Po, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam. 6893 544. 2. Periyar Building Products, P.B.No.3, Koovappady.Po, Perumbavoor, Ernakulam. 6893544. 3. The Proprietor, Pamba Engineerings, Polluvazhi.po, Thaikkarachira, Perumbavoor. 4. The Proprietor, Don Bosco Engineering Works, Kalady Road, Angamaly, Ernakulam. 683 572. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT Case of the complainant is that the opposite parties supplied defective machineries for his industrial unit. That apart they collected excess price than that is shown in the bill issued to him. The cost of the Tile Vibrating Table with motors and mixing machinery with motors supplied by opposite parties were worth Rs.69,506/- as per the bill issued to them by opposite party No.4. But opposite parties 1 to 4 collected Rs.3,00,000/- from him towards the said machineries. Since the said machines were found defective complainant has to replace it with new machines and there by he suffered loss. Hence the complaint 2. Notice to opposite parties 1 & 2 returned as unserved. Hence publication of notice against opposite parties 1 & 2 was allowed. Even after publication of notice Opposite parties 1 & 2 remained absent. Hence Opposite parties 1 & 2 set exparte. Opposite parties 3 & 4 filed version. 3. According to Opposite party No.3 they had supplied the tile vibrating table with motors and one mixing machine and 4 supporting tables. The total cost of them were Rs.3,00,000/-. But the complainant requested to show the price of the machineries as Rs.69,056/- for income tax purpose. Therefore the bill issued for Rs.69,056/- and the machineries supplied are in good working condition. The transaction was on 5-11-05. 4. According to opposite party No.4 they supplied the machineries to opposite party No.3 and for that opposite party No.3 paid the amount also. As requested by opposite party No.3 the bill was given in the name of complainant. 5. To prove the defect of the machineries an expert Sri Balakrishnan.T. (DME) Govt. Polytechnic College, Kasaragod, Periya.Po, was appointed and he filed his report. According to his report the machineries namely Mixing machinery parts and spared with motors 2 in numbers are not working even though he had tried all methods to verify the working condition of the machineries. According to his report the machineries having some inherent manufacturing defects or some mechanical defects. 6. Complainant filed affidavit in support of his claim reiterating what is stated in the complaint. Exts A1 to A6 and C1 marked. Opposite parties have not adduced any oral evidence even by way of affidavits. 7. Ext.A1 is a tax invoice issued by Opposite party No.4 to complainant in that the price of the machineries including tax is shown as Rs.69,056/- only. But the payment of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the said machineries was admitted by the opposite party No.3 in their version. Hence they are liable to refund the said amount in the event of the return of the machineries to them. 8. The Ext.C1 expert report shows that the machineries are not working and has got either inherent manufacturing defects or mechanical defects. Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Three lakhs only) collected from the complainant towards the price of the machineries and take back the machineries supplied by them. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are also directed to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the loss hardship and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the unfair trade practice committed by them. Opposite parties 1 to 4 further directed to pay Rs.3500/-towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance is limit to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts. A1. 5-11-05 Tax invoice. A2.3-2-06 copy of lawyer notice. A3. Postal acknowledgement card A4. Unclaimed registered letter A5. Unclaimed registered letter A6. 21-3-06 letter sent by Supdt of Post office to K.M. Sreedharan Advocate Ext.C1. Commission report. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Pj/ Forwarded by Order SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
