COMPLAINT FILED ON: 03.03.2010<br /> DISPOSED ON: 03.11.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 03RD NOVEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. B.S. REDDY PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.458/2010<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Omar Shariff,<br /> Proprietor<br /> ‘Hotel Select’<br /> Central Street,<br /> Shivajinagar,<br /> Bangalore-10<br /> <br /> Advocate : P. Usman<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Sri.Aswathnarayan K. <br /> Proprietor, <br /> Indus Engineers,<br /> No.78,7th, E Cross,<br /> 1st Main Road,<br /> Shivajinagar,<br /> Bangalore-10.<br /> <br /> <br /> Exparte<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the OP (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.99,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of payment till realization being advance amount paid towards purchase of Hydro-pneumatic system together with compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> Complainant being a proprietor of the ‘Hotel Select’ placed an order with OP for supply and commissioning of Hydro-pneumatic system for his business as well as domestic purpose. OP submitted a quotation and agreed to supply Wilo German make Hydro pneumatic system and high pressure centrifugal booster pump for a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. Copy of the quotation dated 16.02.2008 is produced. Complainant paid sum of Rs.99,000/- as advance by way of cheuqe dated 19.02.2008. As per the discussion OP raised a Proforma Invoice dated 16.06.2009 for a sum of Rs. 2,60,000/- against the complainant being total value of the equipment including 4% VAT payable thereon. It was negotiated and settled that the delivery of the said equipment would be effected within one week from 10.07.2009 and on delivery a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- would be paid by the complainant and balance amount will be settled on commissioning of the equipment Copy of the invoice dated 16.06.2009 is produced. OP did not bother to install and commission the equipment even after expiry of the time agreed by OP. On account of the urgency the complainant was constrained to get it installed and commissioned by another supplier namely ‘Bisineer Sales and Marketing’ in the month of August 2009 on failure to install the equipment by the OP. Copy of the quotation dated 28.02.009 is produced. On 18.01.2010 complainant caused legal notice to OP calling upon to pay a sum of Rs. 99,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from 18.02.2008 till payment together with damages of a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The said notice returned with a endorsement not claimed. Inspite of repeated request and demands when OP failed to refund the amount. Complainant felt deficiency in service against the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint for the necessary relief’s.<br /> <br /> 3. On registration of the complaint notice is sent to the OP Inspite of service of notice OP remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. Hence OP placed ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the quotation dated 16.02.2008, copy of the proforma invoice dated 16.02.2009, copy of the quotation dated 28.02.2009 copy of the legal notice and returned RPAD cover. OP did not participate in the proceedings. Heard arguments of the complainant. <br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the complainant that he being a proprietor of ‘Hotel Select’ placed an order with OP for supply and commissioning of Hydro-pneumatic system for his business as well as domestic purpose for which a quotation was submitted by the OP agreeing to supply Wilo German make Hydro pneumatic system and high pressure centrifugal booster pump for a total sum Rs.2,50,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.99,000/- as advance by way of cheque dated 19.02.2008 OP as per the discussion raised proforma invoice dated 16.06.2009 for a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- against the complainant for the total value of the equipment including 4% VAT payable thereon. Further it was agreed that delivery of the said equipment would be effected within one week from 10.07.2009 and on delivery a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- would be paid by the complainant and balance amount would be settled on the commission of the equipment. Further it is contended that inspite of expiry of the time agreed by the OP for commissioning of the equipment OP failed to install the equipment for the reason best known to him. On account of the urgency complainant was constrained to get it installed by another supplier namely ‘Bisineer sales and marketing’ in the month of august 2009 as per the documents produced by the complainant. Inspite of repeated request and demands when OP failed to refund the amount, on 18.01.2010 complainant caused legal notice to OP calling upon to pay a sum of Rs.99,000/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from 18.02.2008 till payment together with damages of Rs.50,000/-. There was no response to the said notice. OP has failed to fulfill his promise and business commitment for installation and commissioning of the equipment as agreed. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP and approached this forum. <br /> <br /> 6. We have perused unchallenged affidavit evidence filed by the complainant and the documents produced. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. OP having accepted Rs.99,000/- on 19.02.2008 itself failed to deliver and install the equipment as agreed even after a lapse of 1 ½ years. On account of the urgency complainant was constrained to get it installed and commissioned by another supplier namely “Bisineer sales and marketing” in the month of august 2009. From the documents produced it is clear that OP having accepted such a huge amount of Rs.99,000/- from the complainant failed to reply and install the equipment within the agreed time. Further OP has failed to claim the legal notice issued by the complainant. This act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. We are satisfied that complaint is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. From the absence of the OP we can draw the inference that OP admits all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of amount paid with interest at 9% p.a. and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.99,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from 19.02.2008 to till the date of payment along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 3rd day of November 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> gm. <br /> <br />