Haryana

Karnal

58/2014

Satish Kumar S/o Surta Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Savitri Engineering Company - Opp.Party(s)

S.R. Chauhan

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.58 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.:06.03.2014

                                                              Date of decision:06.01.2017

 

Satish Kumar son of Shri Surta Ram resident of village Nagla Megha Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Savitri Engineering Company, opposite Delhi Gate, G.T.Road, Ghaziabad (UP)- 201001 through its Director Shri Gulshan Chadha.

2. Union Bank of India, Model Town, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

                                                                        ………… Opposite Parties.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. S.R.Chauhan  Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Parveen Mann Advocate for the Opposite party no.2.

 Opposite party no.1 exparte.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 23.08.2013 he alongwith Ram Mehar son of Kanshi Ram and Ved Pal son of Panju Ram visited the office of the opposite party no.1 for purchasing Oil Expeller. The opposite party no.1 had  shown various Oil Expellers to him and he selected one oil expeller for which the opposite party no.1 demanded Rs.80,000/- including vat tax and other taxes and freight of Rs.1520/-. He placed the order for the said expeller on the same day and paid an amount of Rs.4500/- as advance. The remaining amount was to be repaid at the time of delivery of the expeller. The opposite party no.1 had promised to send the expeller to him on the next day. It was agreed that opposite party no.1 would provide accessory for fitting the said machine and mechanic for installation of the same.  The opposite party did not deliver the expeller within the time agreed. Therefore, he contacted the opposite party no.1, who asked him to first deposit the remaining amount in its account and thereafter delivery would be made. Accordingly, he deposited the amount of Rs.75,500/- in Union Bank of India Model Town Karnal in account no.398601010029224 of opposite party no.1, on 26.8.2013. Even after depositing the amount the expeller was not sent by the opposite party no.1 immediately, rather the same was sent on 16.9.2013. An amount of Rs.11,200/- was also charged from him as vat tax, which was agreed to have been included in the amount of Rs.80,000/-. The opposite party no.1 with malafide intention did not supply the accessory i.e. bearing, brackets, bush, clutch, patti khal cutting fan, wheel bearings, berm and other spare parts. Even no mechanic was sent for installation despite repeated requests. Ultimately, legal notice dated 9.12.2013 was got served upon the opposite party no.1, but the same also did not yield any result. Then he got installed the expeller by purchasing accessory from the market and spent an amount of Rs.30,000/- on that account. Acts and conduct of the opposite party no.1 amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused him mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complainant was given to the opposite parties. Manager of opposite party no.1 put into appearance on 5.5..2014 and thereafter none put into appearance on its behalf on 29.9.2014. Therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated against him.

3.                Opposite party no.2 filed reply on the letter head submitting therein that an amount of Rs.75,500/- was deposited with it on 26.8.20134 in account no. 398601010029224 of M/s Savitri Engineering Company by the complainant and the said amount was credited to the concerned account on the same day.

4.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Ram Mehar Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 have been tendered.

5.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party no.2, affidavit of S.S.Dhania Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A and documents Ex.OP1 and OP2 have been tendered.

6.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

7.                As per the case of the complainant, he had placed an order with opposite party no.1 on 23.08.2013 for purchasing one expeller. The price of the expeller was told by opposite part no.1 asRs.80000/- including vat, freight charges and other taxes and he had paid an amount of Rs.4500/- as advance and the remaining amount was to be paid at the time of delivery of the expeller. Opposite party no.1 had agreed to deliver the expeller on the next day, but when the expeller was not delivered, he contacted opposite party no.1, who asked him to deposit the balance amount in its account, therefore, he deposited Rs.75,500/- in the account of opposite party no.1 on 26.8.2013. However, the opposite party no.1 delivered the expeller after long delay on 16.9.2013 and charged Rs.11,200/-as Vat Tax, which was not agreed. The opposite party no.1 even neither provided the spare parts nor sent mechanic for installation of the expeller despite his repeated requests and he ultimately got installed the same at his premises by spending an amount of Rs.30,000/-.

8.                The order placed by the complainant with the opposite party no.1 is Ex.C2, wherein the price of the expeller has been mentioned as Rs.80,000/- including freight charges of Rs.1520/-, but it has been specifically mentioned that vat charges would be extra. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4500/- as advance. The sale invoice Ex.C1 shows that the opposite party no.1 had charged Rs.80,000/- as price of the expeller and Rs.11,200/- as vat charges at the rate of 14% i.e. total amount of Rs.91200/- from the complainant. Thus, the documentary evidence runs contrary to the plea raised by the complainant that the price of the expeller was agreed as Rs.80,000/- including vat charges. In order to prove his allegations, the complainant has produced the oral evidence by way of his affidavit as well as affidavit of Ram Mehar Ex.CW2/A, but no importance can be attached to the same, in view of the documentary evidence i.e. order Ex.C2 according to which the complainant was to pay vat charges extra. Under such circumstances, the plea of the complainant regarding charging of vat amount by the opposite party no.1 cannot be accepted being not tenable.

9.                It is also pertinent to note that there is no mention in the order Ex.C2 that the expeller would be delivered to the complainant on the next day of placing the order or within a specified period after receiving the price of the expeller. It has not been mentioned in order that opposite party no.1 would provide spare parts and send mechanic for installation of the expeller. Therefore, oral evidence of the complainant in the form of his affidavit and affidavit of Ram Mehar does not cut any ice in his favour. Had the order not been placed in writing, then certainly the oral evidence could be taken into consideration, but when the order was in writing, the oral evidence beyond the facts mentioned therein cannot be accepted. Under such circumstances, we have no hesitation in concluding that the complainant has failed to establish that the opposite party no.1 had not delivered the expeller within agreed time and did not supply the spare parts and send mechanic for installation of the same as agreed between the parties. Consequently, there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party no.1.

10.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 06.01.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member