Date of filing : 13-01-2012
Date of order : 31-03-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.13/2012
Dated this, the 31st day of March 2012
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
K.Janardhanan, } Complainant
S/o.Late.K.T.Kunhambu Nair,
R/at ‘Swathi’ Kunnummal,
Po.Kottacherry, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv. K.Shrikanthashetty, Kasaragod)
Samir Pradhan, } Opposite party
S/o.Dinakar, Proprietor,
Hi-Tech engineers& Consultants,
Office at A-403/404, Gulmohar, Hill Garden,
Chityalsar, Mandapa, thane West,
Maharastra.400 610.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, MEMBER
The facts of the complainT in brief as follows:
That the complainant is running a Rubber Products Industry at Kanhangad under self employment. It is a SSI unit. The opposite party is the manufacturer and service provider for the supply of universal spreading machines. The opposite party during his canvas approached the complainant in the year 2010 with a proposal of the supply of Universal spreading machine to his industry. The complainant agreed to purchase the machine for `5,65,000/- as per quotation letter dated 14-11-2010. As per the quotation letter, the complainant placed an order with opposite party and advanced an amount of `3,60,000/- through cheque after availing loan from State Bank of India, Kanhangad branch @ 13.25% interest per annum. One of the conditions of the delivery and further payments as per contract. Delivery is 2 ½ months after receipt of technically and commercially clear order along with advance and 95% balance quotation after successful testing of machinery at opposite party’s work place Mathadi Industrial Estate, Thane, balance 5% on commissioning the machine at complainant’s work place at Kanhangad. But after receipt of advance there was no response from opposite party, hence the complainant’s son visited the opposite party and found that the machinery was not yet began to manufacture. Thereafter several communications were made, finally the opposite party promised to deliver on 25-03-2011 but the opposite party failed to deliver the machine on 25-03-2011. Hence this complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against opposite party.
2. After taking the complaint on file the Forum issued notice to opposite party. But the notice returned unserved with an endorsement that it is unclaimed. Hence name of opposite party called absent and set exparte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A4 marked. Exts A1 and A2 are the letters sent by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext.A3 is the photocopy of cheque. Ext.A4 is the registered notice sent by complainant to opposite party. There is no contra evidence adduced by the opposite party. On going through the facts of the case and on perusal of documents the following issues raised for consideration
1.Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
2. If so, what is relief as compensation and costs?
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party since the opposite party failed to deliver the spreading machine after receiving the advance amount. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation as prayed for.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the advance amount received, `3,60,000/- with interest @ 13.25% per annum from the date of complaint till payment and opposite party is further directed to pay `3,00,000/- towards mental agony and sufferings and a cost of `3,000/-. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 14-11-2010 Quotation.
A2. 15-11-2010 Purchase Order
A3. 14-11-2010 Photocopy of Receipt.
A4. 8-5-2011 letter issued by complainant to Opposite party.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/
